| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7634 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8805 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Endrin aldehyde |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8805 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8862 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Enterococcus |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples in each line of evidence exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two of 15 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objective that protects RECI beneficial uses, and two of 15 water samples exceeded the Basin plan Enterococcus water quality objective that protects RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8862 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7612 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Enterococcus |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Non-Contact Recreation |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
15 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedance were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 11/04/2003 at the Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 305 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 11/04/2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7609 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Enterococcus |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
15 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). The exceedance were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 11/04/2003 at the Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 61 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 11/04/2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
DECISION ID |
8863 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 15 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives that protect RECI and RECII beneficial usues. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8863 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7701 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
15 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 235 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7704 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Non-Contact Recreation |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
15 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 1175 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8806 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Ethylbenzene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8806 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8807 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Fluoranthene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8807 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8808 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Fluorene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8808 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8826 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Heptachlor |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8826 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7634 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8828 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Heptachlor epoxide |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8828 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7634 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8834 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8834 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8811 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Hexachlorobutadiene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. No of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8811 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7649 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
11 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8816 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8816 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7662 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
11 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8857 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Lead |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the Basin Plan water quality objective to protect the MUN beneficial use, or the California Toxics Rule criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8857 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7637 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7693 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8835 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8835 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7693 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8849 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Manganese |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8849 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7679 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449
Secondary Drinking Water Standards |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8812 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life use or the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8812 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7640 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Mercury |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8836 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Methoxychlor |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective to protect the MUN beneficial use. None of 17 water samples exceeded the USEPA drinking water criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8836 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7628 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Methoxychlor |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
USEPA Drinking Water Criteria of 40 ug/l for the protection of drinking water uses (USEPA, 2002). |
| Guideline Reference: |
National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7693 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8837 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the primary drinking water MCL or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8837 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7679 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449
Secondary Drinking Water Standards |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8860 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Methyl bromide |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8860 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7659 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
6 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7646 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
6 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8838 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Molinate |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8838 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8865 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Naphthalene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8865 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8813 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nickel |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses or human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8813 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7637 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8839 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nitrate |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8839 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8840 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nitrogen, Nitrite |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8840 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8841 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8841 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8782 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Perchlorate |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples exceeded the water quality objective. When compared to the drinking water 6 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 2 exceedances in October 2002 out of 17 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River.
A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Henderson, NV. Because of this, monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of perchlorate in the River.
A recent report on the progress of remedial efforts reported that the concentration of perchlorate in this segment of the Colorado River (monitoring location at the diversion to the California Aquaeduct) is decreasing. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate (USEPA, 2006; SWAMP, 2007). In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb (USEPA, 2006).
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two out of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL used to interpret the water quality objective in October 2002 and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River.
4. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 by the SWAMP program and other indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate. In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples collected by others reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb
5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because there is insufficient information was collected and reported to accurately assess perchlorate in the Colorado River. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8782 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7615 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Perchlorate |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/01/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 10/02/02 at Parker Dam (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.006 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/01/2002 through 10/02/2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8866 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Phenanthrene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8866 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8814 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Pyrene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. For one line of evidence, none of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8814 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7696 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Arsenic | Benzo[a]anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8842 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8842 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8850 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Silver |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the Basin Plan water quality objective to protect the MUN beneficial use. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8850 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7693 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7679 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449
Secondary Drinking Water Standards |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7637 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8853 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Simazine |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8853 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7672 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Atrazine | Simazine |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
16 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Sixteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Sixteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. No samples were collected from the Imperial Dame grate location in 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
8876 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Specific Conductance |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8876 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7682 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Specific Conductance |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1600 umhos for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449
Secondary Drinking Water Standards |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Measurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8877 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Styrene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8877 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7656 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
6 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8818 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Tetrachloroethylene/PCE |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters or the drinking water MCL. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8818 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7649 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
11 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8843 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Thiobencarb/Bolero |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the primary drinking water MCl, or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8843 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7679 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449
Secondary Drinking Water Standards |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8819 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Toluene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organism only from these waters. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8819 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8821 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Trichloroethylene/TCE |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters or the drinking water MCL. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8821 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7649 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
11 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8878 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8878 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7656 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
6 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8879 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Turbidity |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8879 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7606 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Turbidity |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water quality measurements were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, two exceeded the CDPH SMCL . The exceedances were found in measurements collected on 4/09/2003 upstream of Imperial Dam, and 5/10/2005 at Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 5 NTU for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449
Secondary Drinking Water Standards |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Measurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003 The exceedances were found in measurements collected from 4/09/2003 through 5/10/2005. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8861 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Vinyl chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8861 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7659 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
6 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8846 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Xylenes (total) (mixed) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8846 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8851 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8851 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7625 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Sediment |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7637 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7679 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449
Secondary Drinking Water Standards |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8802 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8802 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8797 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
m-Dichlorobenzene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8797 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8796 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
o-Dichlorobenzene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8796 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8798 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming either water and organisms or organisms only from these waters. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8798 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7652 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7664 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Benzene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
7674 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
17 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|
| |
DECISION ID |
8875 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
pH |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8875 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7708 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
pH |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
9 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Asses Water Quality: |
Seventeen water quality measurements were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Eight measurements could not be used in this assessment because of equipment failure or lack of proper documentation. The 9 acceptable measurements were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Measurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
|