Final California 2010 Integrated Report( 303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin Region

Water Body Name:	Alamo River
Water Body ID:	CAR7231000019990205093023
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	5292	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlorpyrifos consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. Line of Evidence No. 5271 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of this Line of evidence No. 5271 will be combined with the results from other lines of evidence (Nos. 4798, 4800, 4801, 4859, and 5181) in the Final Use Rating. The data in Line of evidence No. 2914 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4859. This is done to prevent the same samples from being counted twice. There were a total of 82 water samples collected. When compared to the California Department of Fish and Game 0.02 ug/l threshold for aquatic life there were 53 exceedances out of 72 acceptable water samples taken, ten sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. There were a total of 35 fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 1000 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were no exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 72 water samples exceeded the CA Department of Fish and Game Hazardous Assessment Criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4859

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-one water samples were taken at seven locations on the river. Ten 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 eleven acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 5/06/2002 through 5/09/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, six exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002, 4/08/2003, 4/09/2003, 4/11/2003, 11/04/2003, and 10/05/2004, from the Drop 6 location, Sinclair Road location near Calipatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on Garst Road bridge (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Twenty-one water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and Outlet to the Salton Sea. Two additional samples were collected from these two locations in 4/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled once in 4/2003.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 10/05/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5181

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Of these total samples , 8 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/14/2006, 10/16/2006, 10/17/2006, 11/13/2006, 2/13/2007, 3/12/2007, 3/14/2007, and 3/16/2007 from all four locations (Orlando et al, 2008).

Data Reference:

"Pesticides in Water and Suspended Sediment of the Alamo and New Rivers, Imperial Valley/Salton Sea Basin, California, 2006-07". U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Final Report prepared in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), delivered to the CRBRWQCB. Palm Desert, CA.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Niland, CA, near Calipatria, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, and at the International Boundary with Mexico.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/2006 through 11/2006 and 2/2007 through 4/2007. The other three sites were sampled twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/14/2006 through 3/16/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Investigators used USGS methods for sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. All methods were approved by State Board QA officer (USGS, 2007b).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5271

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One water quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 4/01/1992. This sample did not exceed the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.

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 Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

A sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 4/01/1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5468

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the years 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4801

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifteen water qualty samples were collected from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005, at five locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 6 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/26/2004 and 3/23/2005 (CDPR, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: Garst Road, Holville Main Drain at Highway 115, Malva Drain near Park, Vail Drain near Young, Verde Drain and Bonds Corner Road.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected and analyzed from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/26/2004 through 3/23/2005.

Environmental Conditions:

Sampling was timed such that two of the sampling events took place during or immediately following periods of historically high pyrethroid use. Another sampling event took place during a period of relatively low historical pyrethroid use.

QAPP Information:

Sampling methods described in Starner, 2004. Analysis performed by California Department of Food and Agricultures Center for Analytical Chemistry, using quality control measures in accordance with Standard Operating Procedure QAQC001.00 (Segawa, 1995)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Study 224. A Preliminary Assessment of Pyrethroid Contamination of Surface Waters and Bed Sediments in High Pyrethroid-Use Regions of California. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Monitoring Branch. Sacramento, CA.

QAQC001.00 Standard Operating Procedures. Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Hazards Assessment Branch. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2914

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Numeric data generated from 4 water samples collected as part of SWAMP and 7 samples collected by USGS. Six of these 11 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (SWAMP, 2004; LeBlanc et al. 2004).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Department of Fish and Game guideline of 0.014 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Seven stations were sampled, all situated along the Alamo River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of the Alamo River into the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Four samples taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. Seven samples collected in April 2003, and the guideline was exceeded in 5 of them.

Environmental Conditions:

The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4798

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-three water quality samples were generally collected once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994 at nine locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 23 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 9/27/1993, 10/04/1993, 10/18/1993, 11/01/1993, 11/29/1993, and 12/13/1993 (CDPR, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 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 Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: at Outlet to the Salton Sea, Albright Road (Nectarine Drain Area), Shank Road (Magnolia Drain Area), downstream of Rose Drain, downstream of Holtville Main Drain, at the Harris Street Bridge, Worthington Road, Holtville WTP, Holtville, downstream of Verde Drain, and at the All American Canal intersection.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were generally collected and analyzed once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 9/27/1993 through 12/13/1993.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Investigators used UCD ATL methods for sample collection, and USEPA methods for analysis. Lab analysis was done by the Dept. of Pesticide, Eureka Laboratories, and Agriculture and Priority Pollutants Laboratories (APPL). QA/QC is described in DiGiorgio, 1994.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

"Colorado River Basin Toxicity Report, Draft Final, March 1993 through February 1994 prepared for V. de Vlaming and G. Starrett, SWRCB; prepared by, UC Davis Dept of Medicine and Epidemiology. Sacramento, CA. Interagency Agreement No. 0-149-250-0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5292, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4800

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997, at one location in the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 8 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 8/28/1996, 9/10/1996, 10/01/1996, 10/21/1996, 10/31/1996, 11/12/1996, 11/18/1996, and 3/05/1997 (CDPR, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Alamo River at the Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/28/1996 through 3/05/1997.

Environmental Conditions:

The samples were collected every few weeks from August through November 1996 and from February through April 1997 to coincide with the pesticide application periods in the Imperial Valley (autumn and late winter/early spring) (Crepeau et al, 2002).

QAPP Information:

Investigators used USGS QA/QC in sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS California District Organic Chemistry Laboratory in Sacramento, California (Crepeau, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996-97. United States Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Open file report No. 02-232. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr02232/


DECISION ID	4571	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess DDT consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. There were a total of 132 water samples collected. When compared to the CTR 0.00059 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 57 exceedances out of 57 acceptable water samples, seventy-five water sample results were either unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and not were not used in the assessment or DDT was not analyzed in the samples. When compared to the CTR 1.1 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there was 1 exceedance out of 103 acceptable water samples, twenty-nine water sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. There were a total of 35 fish fillet and whole fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 21 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were 34 exceedances. When compared to the National Academy of Science 1000 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were 24 exceedances. In addition, the DDT degradates p,p'-DDD, and p,p'-DDE were found in water samples. There were 49 water samples that exceeded p,p'-DDD water quality objectives. When compared to the CTR 0.00084 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 49 exceedances out of 49 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. There were 92 water samples that exceed p,p'-DDE water quality objectives. When compared to the CTR 0.00059 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 92 exceedances out of 92 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 57 of 57 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. In addition, the DDT degradates p,p'-DDD, and p,p'-DDE were found in water samples at concentrations that exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria and exceeded the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5194

Pollutant:

p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty-eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 49 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 49 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00084 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (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 at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5197

Pollutant:

p,p'-DDE

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Six water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 81 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 81 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5199

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 57 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 57 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5378

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 30 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at four locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;12 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 6/21/1978, 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 2 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 10/27/1994: 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample collected on 9/20/1992, and; 1 red swampy crayfish whole fish composite sample collected on 3/12/1979. At the Brawley location 1 exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the Holtville location 1 exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 largemouth bass fillet composite sample collected on 11/15/1985; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample on 11/07/2000; 1 redshiner whole fish composite collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5584

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;10 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, and 11/20/1997; 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998; 1 redshiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Alamo River at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5183

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CTR Criteria (Orlando et al, 2008).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/06 through 11/06 and 2/07 through 4/07. The other three sites were sampled twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5005

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, CA,and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Ninteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in April 2003 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5190

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 58 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 8/1969 through 4/92 at 2 locations in the river. Of these total samples , one exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/19/1975 at Drop 3 near Calipatria, CA (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l p,p'-DDT for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254730 located near Niland, Ca., USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. The exceedence was from a sample collected on 11/19/1975.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4857

Pollutant:

p,p'-DDE

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-one water samples were taken at 7 locations on the river. Ten 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 sample were generally collected and analyzed twice a year, from 5/06/2002 through 10/05/2004, at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 11 exceeded the CTR Criteria The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002,4/8/2003, 4/9/2003, 4/11/2003, 4/15/2003, 11/04/2003, 5/03/2004, and 10/05/2004 from the International Boundary location, at Drop 6A, at Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on Garst Road bridge.(SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Rd near Imperial CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Rd near Calpatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Twenty-one water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea. Two additional samples were collected from these two locations in 4/2003. Drop 10, at Harris Rd, Drop6, Drop 6A, and Sinlcair Rd near Imperial, CA locations were sampled once in 4/2003. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 10/05/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4571, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2890

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Samples were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 0.1 ppb. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 at 7 different stations. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 0.018 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances of the total 14 samples (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 1.1 ppb for 4,4'DDT and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.001 ppb for 4,4'DDT as a 4-day average.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4501	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dieldrin consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. There were a total of 115 water samples collected. When compared to the CTR 0.00014 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 58 exceedances out of 58 acceptable water samples, fifty-seven water sample results were either unacceptable to Listing Policy guideline and were not used in the assessment or Dieldrin was not measured in the sample. When compared to the CTR 0.24 ug/l threshold for aquatic life uses, there were 14 exceedances out of 83 acceptable water samples, thirty-two water sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. There were a total of 35 fillet and whole fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 0.46 ug/kg threshold for consumption there were 30 exceedances out of 30 acceptable fish tissue samples, five fish tissue samples results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there was 1 exceedance. None of 14 sediment samples collected exceeded the sediment quality guideline threshold of 100 ug/kg. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 58 of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5594

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the NAS tissue guideline at 1 location. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 4/22/1982 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 4/22/1982.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5379

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Two fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 28 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 28 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at four locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;12 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 6/21/1978, 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 2 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 10/27/1994:7 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000, and; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample collected on 9/20/1992. At the Brawley location 1 exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the Holtville location 1 exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 redshiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5257

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty seven samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 55 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 0.24 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5201

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 55 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 55 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

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, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4869

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fourteen water samples were taken at two locations on the river. Eleven 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 three acceptible water quality samples were collected on and analyzed biannually from 5/06/2002, 11/04/2003, and 5/04/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. All three exceeded the CTR Criteria. (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 5/03/2004. in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 5/03/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4501, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2883

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 0.24 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Alamo River from Holtville Drain to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4527	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. There were a total of 7 water samples collected. When compared to the CTR 2.0 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances. There were a total of 35 fillet and whole fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 3.6 ug/kg threshold for consumption there were 5 exceedances out of 5 acceptable fish tissue samples, thirty fish tissue sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and not used in the assessment. When compared to the NAS 500 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 5 of 5 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4527, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2901

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: freshwater acute total PCB's maximum = 2 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic total PCB's maximum = 0.014 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The Alamo River from Central Drain to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4527, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5640

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4527, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5382

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Twenty-six fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and it could not be determined that the detection limit was not below the criteria concentration. The 4 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 9/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;2 carp fillet composite samples collected on 9/17/1985, and 8/03/1990, and; 2 carp single fish fillet samples on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 9/17/1985 through 11/07/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	4528	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Selenium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Out-of-state source
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. There were a total of 24 water samples collected. When compared to the Basin Plan 20 ug/l threshold for downstream COMM beneficial use, there were 2 exceedances. The threshold 20 ug/l is also a CTR criteria for aquatic life. There were a total of 25 fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 7400 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were no exceedances out of 17 acceptable fish tissue samples taken, in 8 fish tissue samples Selenium was not analyzed and were not used in the assessment. There were a total of twenty sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 2 of 24 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However there are not enough water samples to satisfy the requirements of Table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4528, Selenium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2903

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unspecified

Temporal Representation:

Unspecified

Environmental Conditions:

Unspecified

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4528, Selenium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5385

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Seven fish fillet and 1 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 14 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 9/1987 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-82, 1987-88, 1990, (2)1993. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1994, and 2000. Ten channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-82, 1987, 1993, 1996-98. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1994. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia, mosquitofish, and red shiner were collected. One red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1980. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One red shiner whole fish composite was collected in the year 1985.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4528, Selenium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30020

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at seven locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Twenty sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4528, Selenium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4872

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/03/2004, and 5/09/2005, from the International Boundary location (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/03/2004 through 5/09/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4528, Selenium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2904

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 100 ppb which is above the water quality objective and will not be used for the purpose of assessing compliance with the CTR (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum is 20 ppb, freshwater chronic maximum is 5 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4521	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. There were a total of 14 water samples collected. When compared to CTR 0.73 ug/l threshold for aquatic life uses, there were no exceedances. There were a total of 35 fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 6.1 ug/kg threshold for consumption there were 24 exceedances out of 24 acceptable fish tissue samples taken, eleven fish tissue sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life there were 24 exceedances out of 32 acceptable fish tissue samples, three fish tissue sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 24 of 24 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4521, Toxaphene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2888

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 0.73 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0002 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was also provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4521, Toxaphene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5485

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Eight fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 3/1979 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;10 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/27/1994: 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/84, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 2 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1988, 1 redshiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/12/1979 through 1107/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4521, Toxaphene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5651

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Two fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 28 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 3/1979 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;10 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample on 10/27/1994; 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/84, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 2 carp single fish fillet samples on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 redshiner whole fish composite collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/12/1979 through 11/07/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	4074	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Sedimentation/Siltation
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Agricultural Return Flows
TMDL Name:	Alamo River Sedimentation/Siltation
TMDL Project Code:	154
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	06/28/2002
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. This water segment-pollutant combination was moved off the section 303(d) list category "needing and EPA approved TMDL developed" and placed in the category "being addressed by an EPA approved TMDL" during the 2002 listing cycle. An Alamo River Sediment TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. The TMDL set a numeric target of 200 mg/l annual average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2910 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. There were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the TMDL numeric target. There were a total of 295 water samples collected representing 7 years of data. When comparing the samples results to the TMDL 200 mg/l annual average TSS numeric target for aquatic life uses, there were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the numeric target. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. A Sediment TMDL was develped and approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. 4. At a minimum, 3 of 7 TSS annual averages exceeded the Alamo River Sediment TMDL Numeric Target and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. However, there are not enough annual averages to support delisting according to instructions for Table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information for this recommendation, RB staff conclude that the water body should be placed in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed category of the section 303(d) list because a TMDL has been approved by USEPA and an implementation plan has been approved.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4074, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2910

Pollutant:

Sedimentation/Siltation

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Not Recorded

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4074, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

24798

Pollutant:

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two hundred and eighty-five water samples were collected from 7 locations along the river over a 4 year period. Over these 4 years, 3 of the annual average TSS concentrations exceeded the TMDL Numeric Target. The annual average TSS Numeric target was exceeded in 2003, 2004, and 2006 (CRBRWQCB, 2007).

Data Reference:

Imperial Valley Sedimentation/Siltation TMDL Implementation Update, Staff Report to Regional Board, June 26, 2007. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: The Final Numeric Target for the New River Sedimentation Siltation TMDL for TSS is an annual average of 200 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Two hundred and eighty-five water samples were generally collected from 2/2003 through 12/2006. Water samples were collected and analyzed monthly from 2/2003 through 12/2006. Samples were not collected from each site every month. Exceedances were found in 2003, 2004, and 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2003).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alamo River Siltation/Sedimentation TMDL Implementation. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4074, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

24797

Pollutant:

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water samples were collected from two locations along the river over a 3 year period. Over these three years, none of the annual average TSS concentrations exceeded the TMDL Numeric Target (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: The Final Numeric Target for the New River Sedimentation Siltation TMDL for TSS is an annual average of 200 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Ten water samples were generally collected from 4/2003 through 5/2005. Water samples were collected and analyzed in April and October of 2003, May and November of 2004, and May of 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	17308	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane \| 1,1-Dichloropropene \| 1,2,3-Trichloropropane \| 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane \| 1,3-Dichloropropane \| 2,2-Dichloropropane \| Bromochloromethane \| Chloroform \| Ethylene dibromide \| Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, and 1,1-Dichloropropene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17308, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29649

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8147	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8147, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5011

Pollutant:

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8148	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8148, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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: 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, 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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8176	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8176, 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

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: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17326	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene \| Chloroethane \| Dichlorodifluoromethane \| Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) \| cis-1,3-Dichloropropene \| trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 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 Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17326, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29832

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May 2002 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17306	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene \| 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene \| Bromobenzene \| Cumene \| delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) \| n-Butylbenzene \| n-Propylbenzene \| sec-Butylbenzene \| tert-Butylbenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17306, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29647

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17306, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29994

Pollutant:

delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were not collected in October of 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	8175	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloroethane
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8175, 1,2-Dichloroethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8178	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloropropane
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8178, 1,2-Dichloropropane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17311	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1-Methylnaphthalene \| 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene \| 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene \| 2-Methylnaphthalene \| Acenaphthylene \| Naphthalene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 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 Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17311, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29817

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17311, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29997

Pollutant:

1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	17310	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1-Methylphenanthrene \| 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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17310, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29996

Pollutant:

1-Methylphenanthrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17310, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29651

Pollutant:

1-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17307	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	2-Chlorotoluene \| 4-Chlorotoluene \| p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17307, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29648

Pollutant:

2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17327	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	2-Hexanone \| Acetone \| Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) \| Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone,or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17327, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29833

Pollutant:

2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May 2002 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8149	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Acenaphthene
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8149, Acenaphthene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17337	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Acenaphthene \| Dichlorobenzophenone \| Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17337, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30023

Pollutant:

Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	4418	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Aldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 4851 and 5250 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information. In both lines of evidence there were a large number of zero or non-detect results and the reporting limit was either above the criteria or unable to be determined. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline the result shall not be used in the assessment. Consequently, only 1 sample in each line of evidence could be used in this assessment. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5250 will be combined with the results of Line of Evidence Nos. 2881 and 5006 for the Final Use Rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. None of the 29 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None fo the 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4418, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4418, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5250

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifty-five samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Fifty-four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 1 acceptable water quality sample was collected on 4/01/1992. This sample did not exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 3 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Fifty-five samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Three samples were collected in 1969, 51 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4418, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5568

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4418, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2881

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects, and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: 3 ppb freshwater acute maximum.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4418, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4851

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fourteen water samples were taken at two locations on the river. Thirteen 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 one acceptable water sample, collected near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on 5/06/2002, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on the Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October.The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 5/06/2002.

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	17336	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Aldrin \| Chlorpyrifos \| Diazinon \| Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17336, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30022

Pollutant:

Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17334	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Aluminum \| Manganese \| 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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17334, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30019

Pollutant:

Aluminum | Manganese | Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. A sample was not collected from the International Boundary sampling location in May of 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	17320	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Ametryn \| Prometryn \| Simetryn \| Terbutryn
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, and Terbutryn consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17320, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29826

Pollutant:

Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were not collected in 11/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8151	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Anthracene
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8151, Anthracene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17330	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Anthracene \| Benzo[a]anthracene \| Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17330, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30015

Pollutant:

Anthracene | Benzo[a]anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8152	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Antimony
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 4 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8152, Antimony	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5263

Pollutant:

Antimony

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four water quality samples were taken at 1 location along the river, generally collected from 9/1978 through 10/1988. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4,300 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Four samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/1978 through 10/1988. One samples was collected in 1978, 2 samples were collected in 1979, and 1 sample was collected in 1988.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4572	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Arsenic
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 5290 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because only 1 sample was collected. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5290 will be combined with the results of Line of Evidence No. 5106 in the Final Use Rating. One fish tissue sample exceeded a 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 the 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wilife Service criteria. None of 88 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2892

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 340 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 150 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5003

Pollutant:

Arsenic | Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

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: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5106

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5384

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fourteen fish fillet and 2 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the samples were not analyzed for the analyte. The 7 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 10/1994 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, 1 whole fish sample collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample collected on 5/08/1980 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5019

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).

Guideline Reference:

Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5252

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Sixty-one samples were taken at 3 locations on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 57 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 340 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254580 located near the International Boundary, USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Sixty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Four samples were collected from 1978-1979, 37 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 19 samples were collected from 1990-1991.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5273

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Sixty-one water samples were taken at 3 locations on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 57 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).

Guideline Reference:

Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, USGS Station No.10254580 located near the International Boundary, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Sixty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Four samples were collected from 1978-1979, 50 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1991.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4572, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5290

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (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 at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/23/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	17321	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Atroton \| Prometon (Prometone) \| Secbumeton
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Atroton, Prometon, and Secbumeton consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17321, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29827

Pollutant:

Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17314	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) \| Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Azinphos, methyl, and Azinphos, ethyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17314, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29820

Pollutant:

Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8154	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Benzene
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8154, Benzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5015

Pollutant:

Benzene | Carbon tetrachloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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: 71 ug/l Benzene, and 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8155	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8155, Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8155, Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4960

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from the Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, usually in May and October.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17319	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) \| Benzo[g,h,i]perylene \| Biphenyl \| Terbufos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17319, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30012

Pollutant:

Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17319, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29825

Pollutant:

Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8153	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Benzo[a]anthracene
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8153, Benzo[a]anthracene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8153, Benzo[a]anthracene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8156	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Benzo[b]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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8156, Benzo[b]fluoranthene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17331	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Benzo[b]fluoranthene \| Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17331, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30016

Pollutant:

Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8157	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Benzo[k]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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8157, Benzo[k]fluoranthene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17317	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Bolstar \| Chlordane \| Ciodrin \| Dacthal \| Demeton s \| Dichlorvos \| Dimethoate \| Disulfoton \| Endrin Ketone \| Ethoprop \| Famphur \| Mirex \| Naled \| Oxadiazon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxodiazon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxodiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxodiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxodiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxodiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17317, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29823

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17317, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30009

Pollutant:

Dacthal | Mirex | Oxadiazon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8159	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Bromoform
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8159, Bromoform	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	4573	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Cadmium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 2893 and 5291 have a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Line of evidence No. 5291 only has 1 sample taken. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of evidence No. 5291 will be combined with the results in Line of Evidence No. 5106 in the Final Use Rating. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 9 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4573, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5004

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4573, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2893

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 10 ppb. In comparison to the hardness-based criterion (using the hardness measurements collected with each sample), there were no exceedances because the detection limit is below the criteria for all samples (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum hardness dependent. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4573, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5106

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4573, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5291

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (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 at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/23/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4573, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5486

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fourteen fish fillet and 2 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the samples were not analyzed for the analyte. The 7 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in 1981-82, 1987-88, 1990, (2)1993. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in 1994, and 2000. Ten channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in 1978-82, 1987, 1993, 1996-98. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in 1994. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia, mosquitofish, and red shiner were collected. One red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1980. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One red shiner whole fish composite was collected in the year 1985.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17338	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Carbon (organic)
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17338, Carbon (organic)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30024

Pollutant:

Carbon (organic)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8160	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Carbon tetrachloride
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8160, Carbon tetrachloride	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5015

Pollutant:

Benzene | Carbon tetrachloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17312	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Carbophenothion \| Dichlofenthion \| Dioxathion \| Ethion \| Fenitrothion \| Fensulfothion \| Fenthion \| Malathion \| Methidathion \| Methyl Parathion \| Parathion \| Tokuthion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, and Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17312, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29818

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17312, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30005

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion | Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17315	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chlorfenvinphos \| Chlorpyrifos, methyl \| Cuomaphos \| Dicrotophos \| Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) \| Fenchlorphos \| Leptophos \| Merphos \| Mevinphos \| Tetrachlorvinphos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17315, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29821

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8161	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chlorobenzene (mono)
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8161, Chlorobenzene (mono)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	4332	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chromium (total)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5207 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5207 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5106 in the Final Use Rating. One sediment sample 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 the 75 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. One of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4332, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5256

Pollutant:

Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifty-two samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 44 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 1/1980 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 1,724 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Fifty-two samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Two samples were collected in 1979, 43 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1991.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4332, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2894

Pollutant:

Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 1724 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 565 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4332, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5003

Pollutant:

Arsenic | Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4332, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5106

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4332, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5207

Pollutant:

Chromium (total)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample exceeded the PEC. The exceedence was found in the sample collected from near Niland, CA (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (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:

Sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One samples was collected. A samples was collected on 10/23/2001. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 10/23/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	8162	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chrysene (C1-C4)
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8162, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8162, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	4349	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Copper
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5293 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5293 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5106 in the Final Use Rating. One water 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 50 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wilife Service criteria. One of 31 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4349, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5106

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4349, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5020

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).

Guideline Reference:

Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4349, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4865

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 1 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003 from the outlet to the Salton Sea location (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and Outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in 2002. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4349, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2895

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum hardness dependent. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4349, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5274

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifty-three water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 26 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 11/1978 through 6/1991. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).

Guideline Reference:

Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Fifty-three samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 11/1978 through 9/1991. Three samples were collected from 1978-1979, 43 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1991.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4349, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5293

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (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 at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/23/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	8169	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Cyanide
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 4 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8169, Cyanide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5264

Pollutant:

Cyanide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Three water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. One water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 2 acceptable water quality samples were collected on 3/26/1979 through 5/30/1979. Neither sample exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 220,000 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Three samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/1978 through 5/1979. One samples was collected in 1978, and 2 samples were collected in 1979.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8169, Cyanide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5189

Pollutant:

Cyanide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water quality samples were taken at 1 location along the river on 3/26/1979 and 5/30/1979. Of these two samples, 1 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 5/30/1979 (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 22 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 located near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Two samples were collected. Samples were collected on 3/26/1979 and 5/30/1979. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 5/30/1979.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	8171	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8171, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17325	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Dibenzothiophene \| o-Xylene
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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17325, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30014

Pollutant:

Dibenzothiophene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17325, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29831

Pollutant:

Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8172	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Dichlorobromomethane
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8172, Dichlorobromomethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8177	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Dichloromethane
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8177, Dichloromethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5018

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these two samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed 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	8180	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 79 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8180, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8180, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4808

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Sixty-five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 1/24/1994 at 11 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, zero exceeded the CTR Criteria (CDPR, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 240 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

The samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 1/24/1994.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	17332	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate \| alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) \| beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17332, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30017

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	4520	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Endrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceeded a 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 the 64 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 50 water samples exceeded the Callifornia Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. One of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5258

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-seven samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Fifty-one water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 36 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 0.086 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5265

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.81 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5610

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the NAS tissue guideline at 1 location. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/08/1980 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 5/08/1980.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2886

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.036 ppb. CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.086 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4520, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5471

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8187	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Ethion
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8187, Ethion	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5472

Pollutant:

Ethion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8181	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8181, Ethylbenzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8188	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8188, Fluoranthene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8188, Fluoranthene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8189	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8189, Fluorene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8189, Fluorene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	4351	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Heptachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4351, Heptachlor	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5620

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4351, Heptachlor	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4351, Heptachlor	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2897

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 0.010 ppb. Samples were also collected on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.1 ppb (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb and freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4474	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the Natiional Academy of Sciences fish tissue 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4474, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2887

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4474, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4474, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5380

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Twenty-eight fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 2 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 11/1998 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4474, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5628

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the years 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17333	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Heptachlor \| 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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17333, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30018

Pollutant:

Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8182	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8182, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5473

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17335	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB \| Methoxychlor \| alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) \| beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17335, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30021

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8183	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8183, Hexachlorobutadiene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8184	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Hexachlorocyclohexane (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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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. One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8184, Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

6743

Pollutant:

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the NAS tissue guideline at 1 location. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/08/1980 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 5/08/1980.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	17328	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Hydroxide \| Pheophytin a
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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, and Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 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 Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17328, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29834

Pollutant:

Hydroxide | Pheophytin a

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at seven locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all seven locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	8190	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8190, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5017

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	5462	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of seven samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5462, Indicator Bacteria	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2911

Pollutant:

Indicator Bacteria

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Numeric data of bacteria counts generated from seven sample dates (some dates had multiple samples that were averaged as described in the Listing Policy section 6.1.5.6). Two of the samples exceeded the water quality objective (CRBRWQCB, 2004f).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: E. coli: Any sample shall not exceed the following maximum allowables: E. coli -- 400 per 100 ml.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Two stations were sampled, each was situated along the Alamo River downstream of the international boundary with Mexico and upstream of the outlet (mouth) of Alamo River into the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

Samples taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002 and April 2003.

Environmental Conditions:

The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4366	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Lead
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5294 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5294 will be combined with the result from Line of Evidence No. 5106 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 31 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4366, Lead	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5004

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4366, Lead	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2898

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum hardness dependent. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4366, Lead	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5294

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (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 at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/23/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4366, Lead	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5106

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8191	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sceinces fish tissue guideline. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8191, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8191, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5474

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8191, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

6737

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8192	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8192, Methyl bromide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5018

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these two samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed 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	8193	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8193, Naphthalene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	4513	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Nickel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5208 received a Use Rating of Insufficient information because there was only one sample. According to Table 3.1, the minumum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results from Line of Evidence No. 5208 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5106 in the Final Use Rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 67 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. One of the 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4513, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5266

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Sixty-five water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 43 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 11/1978 through 4/1994. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4,600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Sixty-five samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 11/1978 through 4/1994. Two samples were collected from 1978-1979, 46 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 17 sample was collected from 1990-1994.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4513, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5008

Pollutant:

Mercury | Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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: 0.051 ug/l Mercury, and 4600 ug/l Nickel (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4513, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5106

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4513, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5208

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 48.6 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (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:

Sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One samples was collected. A samples was collected on 10/23/2001. One sample was collected from 2000-present. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 10/23/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4513, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2900

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute and chronic maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4513, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5004

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17318	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Oxychlordane \| Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) \| Phorate \| Phosmet \| Phosphamidon \| Sulfotep \| Tedion \| Thionazin \| Trichlorfon \| Trichloronate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, and Trichlorfon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17318, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30011

Pollutant:

Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Tedion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17318, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29824

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	4404	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three 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. Three of 111 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4404, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2908

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifteen samples were taken on the Alamo River from January 1997 to March 1998. There were 2 exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Colorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as warm freshwater habitat shall not be reduced below 5 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Unknown.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were taken monthly from 1/28/97 through 3/17/98.

Environmental Conditions:

The two exceedances were in July and August of 1997 when DO dropped below 5 mg/L.

QAPP Information:

Imperial Irrigation District SOPs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4404, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5237

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ninety-six water quality measurements were taken at 2 locations in the river, collected between 4/1978 and 9/1994. Out of these total measurements, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 7/24/1980 from near Niland, CA (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: Water designated WARM 5 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Measurements were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Ninety-six measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 4/78 through 9/94. Thirteen measurements were collected from 1978-1979, 65 measurements were collected from 1980-1989,and 18 measurements were collected from 1990-1994. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 7/24/1980.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	8197	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8197, Phenanthrene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17322	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Propazine \| Terbuthylazine
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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17322, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29828

Pollutant:

Propazine | Terbuthylazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8201	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8201, Pyrene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8201, Pyrene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5105

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17329	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Salinity
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17329, Salinity	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29835

Pollutant:

Salinity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Seven water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at three locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed from in April and November of 2003, and May of 2004 at the International Boundary and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. A sample was collected from Drop 3 in May of 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	4529	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Silver
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 31 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4529, Silver	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2906

Pollutant:

Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute and chronic maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4529, Silver	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5004

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17324	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Streptococcus, fecal
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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17324, Streptococcus, fecal	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29830

Pollutant:

Streptococcus, fecal

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at seven locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002, and April of 2003 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. At Drop 10 and Drop 3 samples were colected in May and October of 2002 only. At Drop 8, and Drop 6A samples were collected in October of 2002 only. At Drop 6 a sample was collected in May of 2002 only.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8203	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8203, Tetrachloroethylene/PCE	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8204	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8204, Toluene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17323	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17323, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30013

Pollutant:

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guideline for the sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17323, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29829

Pollutant:

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to describe Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	5448	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant water or sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. One of 3 sediment samples exhibit toxicity and one of 4 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5448, Toxicity	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2912

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Toxicity testing data generated from 4 water samples. One of these samples was toxic (SWAMP, 2004).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Significant toxicity as compared to control.

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Two stations were sampled, one at the international boundary with Mexico and the other at the outlet (mouth) of Alamo River in to the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

All samples were taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5448, Toxicity	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2913

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Toxicity testing data generated for 3 sediment samples. One of these samples was toxic (SWAMP, 2004).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Significant toxicity as compared to control.

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Two stations were sampled, one at the international boundary with Mexico and the other at the outlet (mouth) of Alamo River into the Salton Sea.

Temporal Representation:

All samples taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	8205	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8205, Trichloroethylene/TCE	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5014

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8206	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8206, Vinyl chloride	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5018

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these two samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed 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	4367	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5295 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 5295 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 4968 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 31 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4367, Zinc	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5295

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (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 at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/23/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4367, Zinc	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5004

Pollutant:

Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4367, Zinc	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2907

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent: 118.14 µg/L (USEPA, 2000) and acute maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4367, Zinc	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4968

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October.Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	17313	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	alpha-Chlordene \| gama-Chlordene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 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 Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17313, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29819

Pollutant:

alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17313, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

30006

Pollutant:

alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	4502	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded CTR criteria protecting aquatic life use. None of 14 water samples exceeded CTR criteria protecting human health. 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4502, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4502, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2885

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 14 samples exceeded either of the criteria. All samples were non-detects, so there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.22 ppb for alpha-endosulfan. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb for alpha-endosulfan as a 4-day average.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4502, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8150	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8150, alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	8158	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8158, beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	4350	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 28 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4350, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4350, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2896

Pollutant:

beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 14 samples exceeded either of the criteria. All samples were non-detects (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.22 ppb for beta-endosulfan. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb for beta-endosulfan as a 4-day average.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	17309	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	cis-Nonachlor \| trans-Nonachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17309, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29650

Pollutant:

cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17309, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29995

Pollutant:

cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8173	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8173, m-Dichlorobenzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	17316	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) \| o,p-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) \| o,p-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) \| p,p-DDMU
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

Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17316, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

29822

Pollutant:

o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | o,p-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | o,p-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | p,p-DDMU

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8174	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8174, p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5013

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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	4432	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceeded 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 472 samples exceeded the 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 Staff Decision:	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 Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4432, pH	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2880

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Freshwater Replenishment

Number of Samples:

179

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) collected samples monthly from 1998 through 2003 at 2 locations on the Alamo River. One of these 132 samples was in exceedance of the criteria. The pH level was measured as 9.6 s.u. on 11/10/1998 at the Salton Sea outlet. On 6/21/2001 7 samples were collected and there were 0 exceedances. In 2002, 25 samples were collected and 0 were in exceedance. From 1997 to 1998, 28 samples were collected and 0 were no exceedance. Twelve samples were collected and field and lab measurements were taken for these samples. There were no exceedances. Three samples were collected in January, February and March of 1998. There were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Colorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

For the samples collected on 6/21/2001, they were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB. The samples collected monthly were collected at the International Boundary and at the Salton Sea outlet. For the samples collected in 2002, they were collected at the International Boundary. Samples were collected at one station for the other samples.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on 6/21/2001 for the 7 samples, 6/2/1998 through 1/12/2004 for the 132 samples, throughout the year from 2/26/1980 through 10/20/1992 for the 25 samples, monthly from January 1997 through March 1998 for the 28 samples, monthly from January 1996 through December 1996 for the 12 samples, and once a month in January, February, and March of 1998 for the 3 samples.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. Also used Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4432, pH	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4914

Pollutant:

pH (low)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-nine water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, at 9 locations in the Alamo River. Of these total measurements, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences was found in a measurement collected on 5/03/2004 from the International Boundary (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Measurements were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, at Drew Rd near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, at Sinclair Rd near Calipatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Twenty-nine measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea location. The rest of the locations were measured twice in 2002, and once in 2003. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 5/03/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4432, pH	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5335

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

264

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two hundred and sixty-four water quality measurements were taken at 4 locations in the river, generally collected from 11/1961 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Measurements were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, USGS Station No. 10254600 at Drop 9 near Holtville, Ca, USGS Station No.10254580 located near the International Boundary, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Two hundred and sixty-four measurements were collected. Measurements were collected from 11/1961 through 9/2002. Fifty measurements were collected from 1961-1969, 106 measurements were collected from 1970-1979, 84 measurements were collected from 1980-1989, 21 measurements were collected from 1990-1999, and 3 measurements were collected from 2000-2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4500	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There were a total of 28 water samples collected. When compared to the CTR 2.4 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances. There were a total of 35 fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 5.6 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were 24 exceedances. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there was 1 exceedance. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 24 out of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4500, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2882

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.025 ppb, so there were no exceedances. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 1 ppb, so there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: 2.4 ppb freshwater acute maximum and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0043 ppb as a 4-day average.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4500, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5006

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4500, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5576

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations:at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the years 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedence was found in a sample collected 9/02/1987.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4500, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5377

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. The fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 23 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in; 11 Channel Catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet on 10/27/1994; 8 Carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 2 Carp single fish fillet samples on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, and; 1 Mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987. (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/12/1979 through 11/07/2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8170	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There were a total of 210 water samples collected. When compared to the DFG 0.16 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there were 75 exceedances out of 201 acceptable water samples, nine water samples were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. There were a total of 35 fisht tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 300 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were no exceedances out of 35 total fish tissue samples taken. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 75 out of 201 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game Hazardous Assessment Criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8170, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5469

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8170, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5205

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Nine water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 60 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 1/1971 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 28 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (USGS, 2007). The exceedences were found in samples collected from 1/18/1971, 10/07/1975, 11/19/1975, 1/29/1976, 2/18/1976, 3/17/1976, 6/02/1976, 9/22/1976, 3/22/1977, 4/19/1977, 9/13/1977, 10/20/1977, 11/08/1977, 1/25/1978/ 3/22/.1978/ 4/26/1978/ and 9/27/1978 from the two locations. (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Sixty-nine samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 1/1971 through 4/1992. Twenty-six samples were collected from 1971 to 1979, 41 from 1980 to 1989, and 1 in 1992. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 1/18/1971 through 9/27/1978.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8170, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5185

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Of these total samples , 4 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/14/2006, 10/16/2006, 10/17/2006, and 11/13/2006 from three locations, at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Niland, CA, near Calipatria, CA, and at Harris Road near Imperial, CA (Orlando et al, 2008).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Twelve water samples were collected. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/06 through 11/07 and 2/07 through 4/07. The other sites were sampled only twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/14/2006 through 11/13/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8170, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4802

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eighty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994 at nine locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 34 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 3/15/1993, 6/21/1993, 9/27/1993, 10/04/1993, 10/18/1993, 11/01/1993, 11/29/1993, 12/13/1993, 1/24/1994, and 2/14/1994 (CDPR, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 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 Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Eighty-four water samples were collected. The samples were generally collected and analyzed once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8170, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4803

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten water quality samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997 at one location on the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 4 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/01/1996, 10/21/1996, 10/31/1996, and 11/12/1996 (CDPR, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Alamo River at Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Ten water samples were collected. The samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/01/1996 through 11/12/1996.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Investigators used USGS QA/QC in sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS California District Organic Chemistry Laboratory in Sacramento, California (Crepeau, 2002)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996-97. United States Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Open file report No. 02-232. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr02232/

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8170, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4804

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifteen water quality samples were collected from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005 at five locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 3 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. All three exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/26/04 (CDPR, 2007).

Data Reference:

Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 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 Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: Garst Road, Holtville Main Drain at Highway 115, Malva Drain near Park, Vail Drain near Young, Verde Drain and Bonds Corner Road.

Temporal Representation:

Fifteen water samples were collected. The samples were collected and analyzed from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005. All three exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/26/04.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Sampling methods described in Starner, 2004. Analysis performed by California Department of Food and Agricultures Center for Analytical Chemistry using quality control measures in accordance with Standard Operating Procedure QAQC001.00 (Segawa, 1995).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

QAQC001.00 Standard Operating Procedures. Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Hazards Assessment Branch. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8170, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4867

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002, and 10/05/2004 from the outlet to the Salton Sea location (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, CA,and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Twenty water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and Outlet to the Salton Sea. Two additional samples were collected in 4/2003 from these two locations. The rest of the locations were sampled once in 4/2003.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 10/05/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8179	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Endosulfan
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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. There were a total of 35 fish tissue samplescollected. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were 4 exceedances. When compared to the OEHHA 20,000 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were no exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 4 out of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8179, Endosulfan	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5595

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. The fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples from two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1987, and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/18/1988. At the International Boundary location, exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, and; 1 largemouth bass fillet composite sample collected on 11/15/1985 (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 11/15/1985 through 11/20/1998.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8179, Endosulfan	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5470

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	8194	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Enterococcus
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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. There were a total of 13 water samples collected. When compared to the Basin Plan 100 MPN/100ml Enterococcus threshold for RECI beneficial use, there were 12 exceedances. When compared to the Basin Plan 500 MPN/100ml Enterococcus threshold for RECII beneficial use, there were 11 exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 12 out of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8194, Enterococcus	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4908

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003, at 7 locations in the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 11 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/07/2002, 5/08/2002, 9/30/2002, 10/01/2002, 10/02/2002, and 4/09/2003 from all seven locations (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, and April 2003 at the International Boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002, although samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 4/09/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8194, Enterococcus	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4897

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 12 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/08/2002, 10/01/2002, 10/02/2002, and 4/09/2003 from all seven locations (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, from all locations. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round Two additional samples were collected in April 2003 from the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton sea locations. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 4/09/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management 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	8195	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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. There were a total of 13 water samples collected. When compared to the Basin Plan 400 MPN/100ml E. coli threshold for RECI beneficial use, there were 5 exceedances. When compared to the Basin Plan 2000 MPN/100ml E. coli threshold for RECII beneficial use, there was 1 exceedance. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 5 out of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8195, Escherichia coli (E. coli)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4880

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/08/2002, 10/01/2002, and 4/09/2003 from four different locations (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at the International Boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Not all locations were sampled each sampling round. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 4/09/2003.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 8195, Escherichia coli (E. coli)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

4901

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedence were found in a sample collected on 10/01/2002 from Drop 10 (SWAMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, and April 2003. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 10/01/2002.

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	4512	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. There were a total of 78 water samples collected. When compared to the CTR 0.051 ug/l threshold for human health there were 17 exceedances out of 71 acceptable water samples taken, seven water sample results were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. When compared to the NRWQC 1.4 ug/l threshold for aquatic life there was 1 exceedance out of 71 acceptable water samples taken, in seven water samples mercury was not analyzed or reported and were not used in the assessment. There were a total of 25 fish tissue samples collected. When compared to the OEHHA 0.3 ug/kg threshold for consumption there were no exceedances out of 15 acceptable fish tissue samples taken, ten fish tissue samples were unacceptable to Listing Policy guidelines and were not used in the assessment. There were a total of 13 sediment samples collected. When compared to the sediment quality guidelines 1.06 mg/kg threshold, there were no exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 17 out of 71 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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 met.

RWQCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4512, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2899

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: 50 ng/L for consumption of water and organisms or organisms only. The reporting limit is 1 ug/l, which is greater than the criterion.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

All samples were collected on 6/21/2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4512, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5203

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Forty-seven water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Thirty water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 17 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 10/1979 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, 17 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/23/1979 through 9/24/1991 at Drop 3 Near Calipatria, CA (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria of 0.051 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Forty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Two samples were collected in 1979, 38 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/23/1979 through 9/24/1991.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4512, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5191

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Forty-seven water quality samples were taken at 1 location along the river, generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Of these total samples , 1 exceeded the NRWQC Criteria. The exceedance was found in a sample collected on 10/23/1979 (USGS, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.

Temporal Representation:

Forty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Two samples were collected in 1979, 38 samples were collected from 1980-1989, 7 samples were collected from 1990-1999. The exceedance was from a sample collected on 10/23/1979.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4512, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5106

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (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 Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4512, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5008

Pollutant:

Mercury | Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4512, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

26670

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4512, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

5562

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Seven fish fillet and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the samples were not analyzed for the analyte. The 14 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1981 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006

Evaluation Guideline:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the Alamo River at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.


DECISION ID	4473	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Total Dissolved Solids
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 139 samples exceeded the water quality objectives 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 Staff Decision:	This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.

SWRCB Board Staff Decision:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4473, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

2879

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Freshwater Replenishment

Number of Samples:

139

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

On 6/21/2001 seven samples were collected by the RWQCB and there were no exceedances. The average of these values was calculated as well and there was not an exceedance. Additionally, samples were collected monthly by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) from 1998 through 2003. Samples were collected at 2 locations on the Alamo River. None of the 132 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Colorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Maximum = 4500 mg/L, and Annual Average = 4000 mg/L for the Alamo River.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples collected on 6/21/2001 were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.

The samples collected monthly were collected at the International Boundary and at the Salton Sea outlet.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Monthly samples were collected from 6/2/1998 through 1/12/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. Also used Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):