Final California 2012 Integrated Report( 303(d) List/305(b) Report)

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21499, Endosulfan	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46022

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21499, Endosulfan	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33087

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/23/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21499, 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:

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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 21499, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 21499, Endosulfan	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46599

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:

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.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

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:

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	21809	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Reason for Delisting:	Applicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle 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. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained. 3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21809, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46622

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 12 fish fillet samples were generally collected from 5/1981 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentratin sof methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish. This is the same dataset used for LOE No. 5562, and three of data used in the LOE no. 5562 did not meet the current evalution guideline, such as off-size range and/or not trophic level 4 fish. Thuse only 12 fish fillet samples were accepted for this assessment. Compositses were generaged from two species: channel catfish and carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001

Spatial Representation:

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

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 6/21/1978-10/27/1994

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 21809, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46050

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21809, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35892

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21809, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35656

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21809, Mercury	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35630

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21809, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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

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 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 21809, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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:

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 21809, 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:

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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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.

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):

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 21809, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 21809, 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:

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:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 21809, 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:

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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.051 ug/l Mercury, and 4600 ug/l Nickel (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, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.

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 21809, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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	21900	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chlordane
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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. 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. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21900, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 21900, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21900, 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:

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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 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 21900, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 21900, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46079

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21900, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32847

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane)exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21900, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33361

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21900, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33650

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected was non-detect for chlordane concentration. (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane)

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21900, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46078

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21900, Chlordane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32373

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected was non-detect and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	19152	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:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating. 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. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19152, 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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 19152, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

45899

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19152, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35918

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19152, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35426

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19152, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35187

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve samples total were collected. Two samples were detected at levels above the evaluation guideline resulting in 2 exceedances. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19152, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

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 19152, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of 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 19152, 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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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/

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19152, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46596

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

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:

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 19152, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 19152, 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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of 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 19152, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19152, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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	24579	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:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. 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. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32394

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected was 23.067 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34523

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 North Coast Labs.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

45900

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

45901

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32395

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected was 2.032 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32396

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected was 19.558 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32412

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected was 1.447 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46772

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: 1 red swamp crayfish sample collected on 5/8/1980; 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 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 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32888

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32916

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two of 8 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32936

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32957

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24579, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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.


DECISION ID	21846	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Diazinon
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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating. 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. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21846, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46597

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

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:

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 21846, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46013

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21846, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35937

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:8392.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21846, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35507

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:8392.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21846, Diazinon	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35193

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21846, 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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of 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 21846, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of 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 21846, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of 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 21846, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21846, 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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

California Department of 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 21846, 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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 21846, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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	18381	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:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46598

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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

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 18381, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46015

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, 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:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18381, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18381, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18381, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18381, 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:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18381, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18381, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35262

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35304

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35305

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35514

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18381, Dieldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46014

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	30281	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Enterococcus
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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Fourteen of 15 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	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.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 30281, Enterococcus	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33242

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two of the two samples collected exceeded the entercoccus objective.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from the Alamo River Outlet station 723ARGRB1 and Alamo River at International Boundary station 723ARINTL.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in October 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21819	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Escherichia coli (E. coli)
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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Six of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six of 14 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	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.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21819, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21819, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21819, Escherichia coli (E. coli)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33241

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample collected exccede the E. coli objective.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from the Alamo River Outlet station 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on October 26, 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	18799	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:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating. 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 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18799, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33232

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18799, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 18799, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18799, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 18799, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33411

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 4 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 4/21/2008 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18799, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46623

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:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18799, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46059

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18799, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46052

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18799, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33418

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 10/23/2007 and 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	18414	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Out-of-state source
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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. Six 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. 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. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. 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 minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	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.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18414, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18414, 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:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18414, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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:

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 18414, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 18414, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

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 18414, Selenium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46836

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:

Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 10/2005 through 10/2008 at 2 locations along the Alamo River . Of these total samples, eight samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a four day average value of selenium shall not exceed 5 ug/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at stations: Alamo River Outlet to the Salton Sea (723 ARGRB1) and at the international boundary (723 ARINTL).

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18414, Selenium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46060

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	18478	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:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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. Twenty-four of 24 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and twenty-four of 37 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18478, Toxaphene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46069

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18478, Toxaphene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46061

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18478, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 18478, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18478, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion 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.

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):


DECISION ID	18050	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:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2010)
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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 24797 and 24798 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18050, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18050, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18050, 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:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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):


DECISION ID	29544	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are 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. Line of evidence No. 29649 contained multiple pollutants and received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline was available. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of four samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria for human health protection from consumption of organisms only and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29544, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29544, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35335

Pollutant:

Chloroform

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	18415	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded theCalifornia Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18415, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35645

Pollutant:

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18415, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	21395	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21395, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21395, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34725

Pollutant:

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21523	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21523, 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34760

Pollutant:

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21523, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 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	30493	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.None of four water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30493, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34793

Pollutant:

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21533	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21533, 1,2-Dichloroethane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34763

Pollutant:

1,2-Dichloroethane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21533, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 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	30492	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of four water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30492, 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34815

Pollutant:

1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21524	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21524, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21524, 1,2-Dichloropropane	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34784

Pollutant:

1,2-Dichloropropane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21612	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutnat was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However the use support rating has been changed from fully supporting to insufficient because the minimum sample size required by the Listing Policy is not met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21612, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	18191	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18191, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46067

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18191, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18191, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: 3 ppb freshwater acute maximum.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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 18191, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18191, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 18191, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34790

Pollutant:

Aldrin

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18191, Aldrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34822

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18191, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)


DECISION ID	21663	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However the use rating was changed from fully supporting to insufficient information. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One 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 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21663, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	29346	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30015 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evalaution guideline was available for this pollutnat. However, an evaluation guideline is avaialble in current assessment cycyle, and the data used in LOE No. 30015 is reassessed, which is shown in LOE No. 46545. Thus the LOE No. 30015 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 32419 and 46545 are combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29346, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32419

Pollutant:

Anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 8 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary (723ARINTL) and Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29346, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29346, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46545

Pollutant:

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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

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	21104	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use support rating was changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21104, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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	18468	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are 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. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18468, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18468, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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 18468, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18468, 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:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18468, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18468, 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:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (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 18468, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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 18468, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 18468, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46068

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.

Guideline Reference:

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

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18468, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35220

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18468, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35197

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18468, Arsenic	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35482

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30487	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 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 USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30487, Atrazine	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35246

Pollutant:

Atrazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	29558	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29827 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is 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 USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29558, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35685

Pollutant:

Prometon (Prometone)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29558, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29503	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29820 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is 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. Twelve water samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of non-acceptable samples, staff cannot make a decision for this pollutant if water quality objective is met. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29503, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35288

Pollutant:

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29503, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	21396	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21396, Benzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35352

Pollutant:

Benzene

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21396, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 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	21664	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. 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 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21664, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21664, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21664, Benzo(a)anthracene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35329

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21562	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. 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 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21562, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21562, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21562, Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34996

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000)

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21665	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supproting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21665, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	21519	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient inforamtion due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21519, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	30476	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 samples exceeded the median lethal concentration for bifenthrin and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30476, Bifenthrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46331

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30476, Bifenthrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35421

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Biological and Surface Water Sampling to Lower Santa Margarita River Watershed Monitoring Program.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30476, Bifenthrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33932

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one non-detect sample collected for bifenthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The guideline 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	29537	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29537, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35573

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29537, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46051

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29537, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 29537, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 29537, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35238

Pollutant:

Dichlorvos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29537, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35341

Pollutant:

Dacthal

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29537, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35349

Pollutant:

Dimethoate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21614	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21614, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21614, Bromoform	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35202

Pollutant:

Bromoform

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	18442	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. 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 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18442, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 18442, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46077

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.

Guideline Reference:

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18442, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35485

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18442, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18442, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18442, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18442, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18442, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32831

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18442, Cadmium	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35247

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21625	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21625, Carbon tetrachloride	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35269

Pollutant:

Carbon tetrachloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21625, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	29501	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29818 and 30005 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants lsited in these LOEs. 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 Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, none of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29501, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 29501, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35479

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:8392.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29501, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35537

Pollutant:

Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29501, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35578

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29501, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35977

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:8392.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29501, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	21626	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence 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 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21626, Chlorobenzene (mono)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35294

Pollutant:

Chlorobenzene (mono)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21626, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	22426	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 22426, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35498

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 22426, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

USEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 1724 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 565 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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 22426, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 22426, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 22426, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 22426, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 22426, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34099

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/28/08.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 22426, Chromium (total)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35210

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21670	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporlting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. 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 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21670, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21670, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21670, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32867

Pollutant:

Chrysene (C1-C4)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	18150	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18150, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35501

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18150, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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 18150, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18150, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18150, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35277

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18150, Copper	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32853

Pollutant:

Copper, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18150, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18150, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18150, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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):


DECISION ID	30491	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30491, Cyanazine	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35300

Pollutant:

Cyanazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21269	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the seciton 303(d) list in ap revious assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21269, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 21269, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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	30489	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30489, Cyfluthrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46361

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30489, Cyfluthrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35442

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30489, Cyfluthrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33933

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one non-detect sample collected for cyfluthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30490	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30490, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35458

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30490, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46323

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30490, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33934

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one non-detect sample collected for lambda-cyhalothrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30494	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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. 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 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and one of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30494, Cypermethrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33935

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one non-detect sample collected for cypermethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maund et al. 2002).

Guideline Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30494, Cypermethrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35474

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).

Guideline Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30494, Cypermethrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46345

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Eleven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30495	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 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 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30495, Deltamethrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35491

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30495, Deltamethrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33936

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one non-detect sample collected for deltamethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30495, Deltamethrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46325

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21681	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21681, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	21682	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of LOE No. 5013 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21682, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	21582	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of LOE No. 5018 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21582, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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	21525	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 91 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21525, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35048

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21525, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21525, 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.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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	18467	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Fourteen 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 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.036 ppb. CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.086 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 18467, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35068

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18467, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35067

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18467, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 18467, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35057

Pollutant:

Endrin

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18467, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46025

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18467, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46024

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18467, Endrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35517

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30496	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30496, Endrin aldehyde	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35080

Pollutant:

Endrin aldehyde

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30497	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30497, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35940

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30497, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35448

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30497, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46346

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21536	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21536, Ethylbenzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35099

Pollutant:

Ethylbenzene

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21536, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	30503	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 42 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30503, Fecal Coliform	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

31673

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six of the forty two samples exceeded the fecal coliform objective.

Data Reference:

Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Fecal Coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100 ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected in Alamo River at the international boundary.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between January 2006 to March 2010. CAR7231000019990205093023

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected under the USIBWC Collection and Field Analysis of Water Quality Samples document.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	30498	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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 six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30498, Fenpropathrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46368

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30498, Fenpropathrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35451

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:8392.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30498, Fenpropathrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33937

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one non-detect sample collected for fenpropathrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:8392.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30498, Fenpropathrin	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35959

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:8392.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	18382	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18382, Fluoranthene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35437

Pollutant:

Fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18382, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18382, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	21281	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient inforamtion due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21281, Fluorene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32982

Pollutant:

Fluorene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	18142	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18142, Heptachlor	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35144

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18142, Heptachlor	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46034

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18142, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb and freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18142, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18142, Heptachlor	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35094

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18142, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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	18436	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.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 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18436, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35146

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18436, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18436, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 18436, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46041

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18436, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46042

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18436, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35113

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18436, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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 18436, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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):


DECISION ID	21405	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21405, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46043

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21405, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35165

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21405, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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	21489	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21489, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21489, Hexachlorobutadiene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35525

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobutadiene

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21406	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for palcement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. The use rating of the LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21406, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	19266	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of the LOE No. 2911 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19266, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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

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	18281	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 18281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 18281, Lead	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35869

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18281, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18281, Lead	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32901

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet), and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18281, Lead	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35567

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21693	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21693, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21693, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 21693, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 21693, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35106

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21693, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35107

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21693, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35174

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21693, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35866

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21693, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46032

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21693, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46033

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	30478	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Line of Evidence No. 29818 received Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cycle, because no evalaution guideline was available. However, an evaluation guideline for Methidathoin is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is 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 USEPA aquatic life maximum acceptable toxicant concentration level for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30478, Methidathion	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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 30478, Methidathion	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35357

Pollutant:

Methidathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	30499	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Methoxychlor and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30499, Methoxychlor	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35571

Pollutant:

Methoxychlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21323	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21323, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	32096	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32096, Molinate	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35595

Pollutant:

Molinate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21324	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21324, Naphthalene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32562

Pollutant:

Naphthalene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21324, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)


DECISION ID	18397	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten 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 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18397, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32923

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18397, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35658

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18397, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35683

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18397, Nickel	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35895

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18397, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute and chronic maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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 18397, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18397, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18397, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18397, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18397, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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):


DECISION ID	30500	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.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 six samples exceeded the USEPA criteria for ammonia and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30500, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34569

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

1 of the 6 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia.

Data Reference:

1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Sample was collected at 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	29538	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30011 and 29824 was received the use rating of insufficient information during last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants. 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 USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for phosmet and phorate and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29538, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of 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 29538, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35617

Pollutant:

Phorate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29538, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 29538, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35642

Pollutant:

Phosmet

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	18183	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine 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. Nine of 166 samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18183, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34033

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

There were 4 out of the 43 samples that had a DO level below 5.0 mg/L.

Data Reference:

Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected in the Alamo River (at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected twice a month between 01/25/06 and 03/10/10.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

EnviroMatrix Analytical Inc. Quality Assurance Program Manual (Controlled Document Number EMA-100.8.0001)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18183, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32292

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One of the six samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at station 723ARINTL - Alamo River at International Boundary.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected during October 2005, May 2006, May and October 2007, April and October 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18183, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32291

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One of the six samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at station 723ARGRB1 - Alamo River Outlet.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected during October 2005, May 2006, May and October 2007, April and October 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18183, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18183, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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):


DECISION ID	30501	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30501, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35469

Pollutant:

PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30502	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 11 sediemnt samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30502, Permethrin, total	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46452

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Eight sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/23/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30502, Permethrin, total	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35497

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30502, Permethrin, total	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33938

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one non-detect sample collected for permethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21334	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21334, Phenanthrene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32805

Pollutant:

Phenanthrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 8 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, and Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21334, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)


DECISION ID	30484	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Prometryn
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
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2025
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29826 was received use rating of insufficient information because no evaluation guideline was available during 2010 assessment cycle. 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 USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30484, Prometryn	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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 30484, Prometryn	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35371

Pollutant:

Prometryn

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	29340	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29828 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is 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 USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29340, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 29340, Multiple Pollutants	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35561

Pollutant:

Propazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21380	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21380, Pyrene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35453

Pollutant:

Pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21380, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21380, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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)


DECISION ID	18474	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 43 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18474, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18474, Silver	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32943

Pollutant:

Silver

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18474, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater acute and chronic maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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):


DECISION ID	32097	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 samples the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32097, Simazine	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35603

Pollutant:

Simazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21386	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21386, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21386, Tetrachloroethylene/PCE	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35671

Pollutant:

Tetrachloroethylene/PCE

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32098	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Thiobencarb/Bolero
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 samples the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb/Bolero and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32098, Thiobencarb/Bolero	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35379

Pollutant:

Thiobencarb/Bolero

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	21387	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs are combined to determine a 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 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21387, Toluene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35389

Pollutant:

Toluene

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21387, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	21388	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two 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 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21388, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21388, Trichloroethylene/TCE	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35398

Pollutant:

Trichloroethylene/TCE

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21389	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of the LOE No. 5018 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21389, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	18282	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18282, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18282, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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 18282, Zinc	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32964

Pollutant:

Zinc, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18282, Zinc	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35915

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18282, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent: 118.14 µg/L (USEPA, 2000) and acute maximum hardness dependent.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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 18282, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18282, Zinc	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35410

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	18586	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5006 was replaced by LOE No. 46535. The use rating of the LOE No. 5006 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to the insufficent sample size to determine impairment of this pollutant required by the Listing Policy, and is not used for final use rating. LOE 46535 is combined with LOE 35024 and 2885. LOE 35014 is combined with LOE 5013. 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 40 water samples exceeded the CTR Criterion Continuous Concentration for protection of aquatic life, and none of 26 water samples xeceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18586, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35014

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18586, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18586, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18586, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

46535

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

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 Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Californai Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Continuous Concentrations (CCC) of 0.056 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aqatic life use was used.

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 18586, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35024

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18586, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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):


DECISION ID	21613	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21613, alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35121

Pollutant:

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21613, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	21618	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteri and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21618, beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35153

Pollutant:

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21618, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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	18141	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of 12 samples exceeded the CTR for protection of human health from consumption of organisms. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18141, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35031

Pollutant:

beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18141, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 18141, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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 18141, beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35041

Pollutant:

beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	21270	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a 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 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21270, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21270, m-Dichlorobenzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34736

Pollutant:

1, 3 -dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	30505	Region 7
Alamo River

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of four water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30505, o-Dichlorobenzene	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34730

Pollutant:

o-Dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	21522	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a 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 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21522, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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 21522, p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

34769

Pollutant:

1, 4 -dichlorobenzene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.

Data Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	18176	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven 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. Seven of 528 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18176, pH	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32359

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 6 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at station 723ARGRB1 - Alamo River Outlet.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected during October 2005, May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, April and October 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18176, pH	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32289

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Out of the 44 samples, 5 were outside the range specified in the water quality objective.

Data Reference:

Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Alamo River at the International Boundary.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected monthly between 01/25/06 and 03/10/10.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

EnviroMatrix Analytical Inc. Quality Assurance Program Manual(Controlled Document Number EMA-100.8.0001)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18176, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Measurements were collected 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18176, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Measurements were collected from the following 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 18176, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Colorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 18176, pH	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32360

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 6 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at station 723ARINTL - Alamo River at International Boundary.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected during October 2005, May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, April and October 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	30488	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Chloride
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2025
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Ten of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30488, Chloride	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

33102

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

10 of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	31180	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Malathion
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2025
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification 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. Three of three water samples exceeded the UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 31180, Malathion	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

35589

Pollutant:

Malathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Twelve samples total were collected. Three samples were detected at levels above the evaluation guideline resulting in 3 exceedances. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	19345	Region 7
Alamo River

Pollutant:	Toxicity
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)(2010)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2025
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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. All three sediment Toxicity LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 12 sediment samples exhibit toxicity and one of 4 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19345, Toxicity	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32028

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Three of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold.

Guideline Reference:

Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at stations 723ARINTL and 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from October 2005 to 2008 during the months of April, May and October.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19345, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Significant toxicity as compared to control.

Guideline Reference:

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19345, Toxicity	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32029

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The one sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at station 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected in October 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19345, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Significant toxicity as compared to control.

Guideline Reference:

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 19345, Toxicity	Region 7
Alamo River

LOE ID:

32027

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eleven samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival of Hyalella azteca, survival snd biomass of Pimephales promelas and survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at stations 723ARINTL and 723ARGRB1.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from October 2005 to 2008 during the months of April, May and October.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	29561	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29561, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29531	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29531, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29531, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29526	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29526, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 29526, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29525	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29525, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 29525, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29532	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29532, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29569	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29569, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29352	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29352, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of 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	29343	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle for Aldrin, but Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon and Toxaphene will be assessed with new data and standard. Therefore, the previous conclusion for Aldrin remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin 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 for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29343, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of 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	29570	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29570, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29510	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle except prometryn. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged except prometryn, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Ametryn, Simetryn, and Terbutryn consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, 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, 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29510, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	30012	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30012, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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 30012, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29347	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29347, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29357	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29357, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29545	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29545, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29560	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29560, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29560, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29348	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29348, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	21491	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for palcement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21491, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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:

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	30087	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30087, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29342	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29342, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	21490	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 21490, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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	29551	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29551, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

No evaluation guidelines for 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	29552	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29552, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the following 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	29539	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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 29539, 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:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

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	18388	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)(2010)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 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.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 18388, 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

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: