Comprehensive (all data fields) Decision-Based Spreadsheet Report

Board NameWater BodyWBIDWater Body TypeWater Body Sub TypeWater Body CALWNUMSWater Body Reach CodesWater Body WBD CodesWater Body CountiesDecision IDDecision Listing YearPollutantsSourcesFinal Listing DecisionRevision StatusDelist ReasonTMDL Project CodeTMDL Project NameExpected TMDL Completion DateExpected Attainment DateDate TMDL Approved by USEPAImplementation Action Other than TMDLImpairment?Waters Threatened?Poor QA?Not Enough Samples?Decision RelationshipsRegional Board DecisionState Board DecisionUSEPA Action (if applicable)CommentsLOE IDLOE Listing YearStatusAssessor CommentPollutantsBeneficial UsesAquatic Life UsesLOE Sub GroupMatrixFractionNumber of SamplesNumber of ExceedancesData Used to Assess Water QualityData Used to Assess Water Quality ReferencesData and Information TypeCriterion/ObjectiveCriterion/Objective ReferencesEvaluation GuidelineEvaluation Guideline ReferencesSpatial RepresentationTemporal RepresentationEnvironmental ConditionsQuality Assurance InformationQuality Assurance Information References
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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 evalauted 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. 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. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   55952010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal354Thirty 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).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.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. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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 evalauted 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. 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. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   330872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24186EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 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).1.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  Samples were collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/23/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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 evalauted 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. 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. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   460222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671285EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water 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 Endosulfan, 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 endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData 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]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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 evalauted 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. 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. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   460232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671286EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water 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 Endosulfan, 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 endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National 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.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData 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]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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 evalauted 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. 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. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   465992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty 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 11/2000.1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.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 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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 evalauted 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. 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. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   54702010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty 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, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.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 AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.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 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   52032010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1717Forty-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).1.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.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria of 0.051 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.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  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.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. 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).1.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. 2.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.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   51912010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved471Forty-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).1.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.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataNational Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.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. 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).1.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. 2.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.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen 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).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus 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).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   50082010State Reviewed Mercury | NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-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).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.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  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.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   28992006State ReviewedNJK: Even though there are no exceedences, these data are insufficient in determining use support because the reporting limit is above the criterion. Therefore the use support rating would be insufficient information.MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data 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).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: 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.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  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.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   55622010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal150Twenty-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).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.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 AssessmentSamples were collected from the Alamo River at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.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. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   266702010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-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 NRWQC Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  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.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   356302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167980MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water 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.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.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  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   356562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167991MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water 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.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   358922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168307MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water 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.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   466222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet120The 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.1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.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 2001Samples were collected from the Alamo River at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Data was collected over the time period 6/21/1978-10/27/1994 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis 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.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.   460502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671295MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water 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.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.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 2001Data 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]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River (Imperial Reservoir to California-Mexico Border)CAR7270000020050815175128River & Stream 10727.00000015030107000002,15030107000578,15030107000700,15030107000719,15030107000819,15030107000826,15030107000833,15030107000834,15030107001098,15030107001229,(Total Count: 11)150301041311,150301070101,150301070105,150301070107Imperial203652012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; due to change in WQS      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. In previous assessement cycle, prior to 2006, this database was assessed based on screening value of 2 mg/kg. Since the new OEHHA guideline, 2008, for selenium was used for current assessment cycle, the LOE 2968 was replaced by LOE 46528, which was assessed based on the new guideline. The LOE 46528 received use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size required by the Listing Policy to assess this water body for selenium is not met in this dataset. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five samples exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenuium and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   465282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal50None of 5 samples exceeded (TSMP, 2002). A total of five filet samples of largemouth bass were collected. Bass were collected in 1992, 1999, and 2001-02. Bass exceeded the guidelines in 1999 and 2001-02.1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program data for years 1992-2002 and Coastal Fish Contamination Program for years 1 and 2. State Water Resources Control Board 2.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combinationof chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goals(FCGs) 7.4 mg/kg1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneTwo stations were sampled: about 2 miles downstream of the Needles Marina Resort and from Squaw Lake boat launch ramp to 1/4 mile notrh of Senator Lake.Samples were collected annuallly in 1992, 1999 and 2001-02. Toxic Sustances Monitoring Program 1992-1993 Data Report.Environmental Chemistry Qaulity Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996=2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River (Imperial Reservoir to California-Mexico Border)CAR7270000020050815175128River & Stream 10727.00000015030107000002,15030107000578,15030107000700,15030107000719,15030107000819,15030107000826,15030107000833,15030107000834,15030107001098,15030107001229,(Total Count: 11)150301041311,150301070101,150301070105,150301070107Imperial203652012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; due to change in WQS      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. In previous assessement cycle, prior to 2006, this database was assessed based on screening value of 2 mg/kg. Since the new OEHHA guideline, 2008, for selenium was used for current assessment cycle, the LOE 2968 was replaced by LOE 46528, which was assessed based on the new guideline. The LOE 46528 received use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size required by the Listing Policy to assess this water body for selenium is not met in this dataset. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five samples exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenuium and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   29682006State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal53Three out of 5 samples exceeded (TSMP, 2002). A total of 5 filet samples of largemouth bass were collected. Bass were collected in 1992, 1999, and 2001-02. Bass exceeded the guideline in 1999 and 2001-02.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)OEHHA Screening Value 2 ug/g.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Two stations were sampled: about 2 miles downstream of the Needles Marina Resort and from Squaw Lake boat launch ramp to 1/4 mile north of Senator Lake.Samples were collected annually in 1992, 1999 and 2001-02. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 Data Report.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. 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. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   56072010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4010Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 6 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 6 locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At Rose drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/17/1998, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 8/17/1991. At South Central drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 8/01/1990. At Rice drain 3 exceedances were found in 2 carp fillet composite samples collected on 10/10/1985, and 10/15/1986. At Pumice drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1990, and 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1990. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 8/16/19991. At Peach drain exceedences were found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 11/03/1996, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 9/17/1992 (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 11/17/1998. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. 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. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   461832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671437EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National 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.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. 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. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   461822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671436EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis 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.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. 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. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.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.   55332010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.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 AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 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 verify the original Listing decision. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   298362010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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 Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 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 verify the original Listing decision. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   269282010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved39 Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene 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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 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 verify the original Listing decision. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   268742010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved370 Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene 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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 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 verify the original Listing decision. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   213812010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21 Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene 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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 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 verify the original Listing decision. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   213802010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved9 Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the 0.5 ug/l reporting limit (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene 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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 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 verify the original Listing decision. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   46652006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213672010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA ambient water quality criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   46662006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213692010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA ambient water quality criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   268752010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA NRWQC (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   269292010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA NRWQC (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   298382010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213682010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA ambient water quality criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   360262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168345ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria to protect human health from the consumption chloroform in organisms is 470 ug/L.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   353362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167665ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   29222006State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1136Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003 on the New River at the International Boundary. Of the 98 monthly samples, 6 were in exceedance of the chronic criteria and 0 were in exceedance of the acute criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB at three locations on the New River from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of the 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999 on the New River. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c) (USEPA, 2007).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness and freshwater acute maximum based on hardness.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. For the 6 samples, they were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, and at both the International Drain and Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   49212010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.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  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. An additional sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   467732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.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  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. An additional sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   355002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168291CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   50482010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   328992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21916Copper, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.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  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary), and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   352972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167704CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   52782010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Fifty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Forty-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 16 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 5/1984. Of all these samples, none exceed the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.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.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bilogical Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Fifty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 2/1985. Twenty-nine samples were collected from 1973-1979, and 28 samples were collected from 1980-1985. 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).1.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. 2.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.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   53222010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal30Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations along the river. The samples were generally collected from 11/1973 through 4/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.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.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. One sample was collected on 11/07/1973, another sample was collected on 10/24/01, and another sample was collected 4/14/03. 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).1.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. 2.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.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial232952012Pesticides Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalChange from general pollutant to specific pollutant listing (e.g. metals to copper)      YNNNRegional 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 removal from the section 303(d) list in favor of listings for specific pesticides on the section 303(d) list.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess thispollutant. Line of Evidence No. 4392 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006.The listing has been cited as "pesticides" rather than listing for specifc pollutants responsible for the impairment. There is no guideline for evaluating the general pollutant "Pesticides" and it cannot be determined if the pollutant is likely to cause or contribute to a toxic effect. The New River is currently listed on the 303(d) list as impaired by the six specific pesticides: Chlordane, Chlorpyrifos, DDT, Diazinon, Dieldrin, and Toxaphene. Each of these specific pesticides have lines of evidence to support their listings. As new data is collected and assessed these and other specific pesticides may be either listed or delisted. 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. A water quality guideline for the general pollutant "pesticides" is not available that complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Water quality guidelines for specific pesticides are available that comply with section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.2. The New River is currently listed on the 303(d) list as impaired by six specific pesticides. 3. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data andinformation are available indicating that standards are met.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.   43922006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.PesticidesWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   268782010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   269322010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   353902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168159TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.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  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213752010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   43932006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.TolueneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.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  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213742010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213762010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   359022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168373TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.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  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   29302006State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1130Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003 on the New River at the International Boundary. Of the 98 monthly samples, 0 were in exceedance of the criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB on the New River at 3 locations from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999 on the New River. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum based on hardness and freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Most samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. For the 6 samples, they were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, and at both the International Drain and Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   29522006State Reviewed ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone44Toxicity testing data generated from 4 sediment samples. Four of these samples were toxic (SWAMP, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin 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.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Significant toxicity as compared to control.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Three stations were sampled, all were situated along the New River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of New River into the Salton Sea.All samples were taken between the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. Toxicity was detected during both seasons.The New River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   48742010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal142Fourteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the PEC. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/04/2003, and 10/04/2004 from the International Boundary location (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus 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).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment 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 11/04/2003 through 10/04/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   50272010State Reviewed Lead | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.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  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   53242010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal30Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations along the river. The samples were generally collected from 11/1973 through 4/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.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.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. One sample was collected on 11/07/1973, another sample was collected on 10/24/01, and another sample was collected 4/14/03. 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).1.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. 2.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.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   325682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21944ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.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  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary), and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   354132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168184ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   358972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168312ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213722010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months.. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213732010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   268762010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213702010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   43872006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.meta-para xylenesWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   269302010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213722010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months.. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213702010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   43892006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.o-XyleneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213732010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   298632010State Reviewed o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at 3 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all three sampling locations in 10/2002. In 4/2003, 11/2003, and 5/2004 samples were collected from the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations only. In 7/2003 a sample was collected from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   269302010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   268762010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 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 verify the original Listing decision.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   213772010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved9 Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the 0.5 ug/l reporting limit (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 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 verify the original Listing decision.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   213782010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21 Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the 0.5 ug/l reporting limit (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 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 verify the original Listing decision.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   298372010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 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 verify the original Listing decision.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   269312010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved39 Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 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 verify the original Listing decision.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   268772010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved370 Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional 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 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.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 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 verify the original Listing decision.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.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.   43902006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   347702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675371, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.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  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   360012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683371, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.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  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   269322010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   268782010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213762010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213752010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   43912006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.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  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis 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.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 not met.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.   213742010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.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 AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   43952006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   54302010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty-five fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 8/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1984 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty five fish fillet samples of bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, tilapia, and sargo were collected.Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1984-87, (4)1991, 1997, and 1999. Six orangemouth corvine single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (6)1986. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (2)1995. Nine tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985,1987, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Three sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, and 1991. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   234992010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Health AdvisoriesTissueFish whole body  A fish consumption advisory has been established for selenium in the Salton Sea by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Because of elevated selenium levels, no one should eat more than four ounces of croaker, orangemouth corvina, sargo, or tilapia taken from the Salton Sea in any two-week period.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneNot Specified  A fish consumption advisory has been established for selenium in the Salton Sea by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Because of elevated selenium levels, no one should eat more than four ounces of croaker, orangemouth corvina, sargo, or tilapia taken from the Salton Sea in any two-week period.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene   Assume good Quality Control 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   300932010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal29 Twenty-nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. An extra sample was collected and analyzed from the Salton Sea GS9 sampling location in September of 2002. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   464342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671727SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Four composites (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 4 locations. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.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. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed 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 not met.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.   468332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved200Twenty water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 10/2005 through 10/2008 at 4 locations along the Salton Sea. Of these total samples , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, and Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09.Data were collected 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial302812012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis 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.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.   49082010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1311Thirteen 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).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  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 on Garst Road bridge.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial302812012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis 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.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.   48972010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1312Thirteen 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).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  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 on Garst Road bridge.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial302812012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis 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.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.   332422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23280EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone22Two of the two samples collected exceeded the entercoccus objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Alamo River Outlet station 723ARGRB1 and Alamo River at International Boundary station 723ARINTL.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218192012Escherichia coli (E. coli)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis 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.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.   332412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23279Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone11The one sample collected exccede the E. coli objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Alamo River Outlet station 723ARGRB1.The sample was collected on October 26, 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218192012Escherichia coli (E. coli)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis 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.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.   49012010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal131Thirteen 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).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  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 on Garst Road bridge.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218192012Escherichia coli (E. coli)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis 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.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.   48802010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal135Thirteen 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).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  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 on Garst Road Bridge.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis 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.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.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.460602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671299SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water 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.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData 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]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis 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.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.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.300202010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20 Twenty sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at seven locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  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.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis 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.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.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.53852010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal170Twenty-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).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.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. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis 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.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.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.48722010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved242Twenty-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).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  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 on Garst Road.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. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis 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.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.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.29042006State ReviewedNJK: Even though no samples exceed the criteria, the Use support rating is insufficient information because the detection limit was above the criteria.SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data 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).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum is 20 ppb, freshwater chronic maximum is 5 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  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.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis 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.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.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.29032006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified    UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis 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.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.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.468362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved128Twelve 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.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at stations: Alamo River Outlet to the Salton Sea (723 ARGRB1) and at the international boundary (723 ARINTL).Data were collected 10/25/2005-10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.460832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671308Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21785DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 1.686 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.345242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26186DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The 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').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 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).1.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  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.329582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21854DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.329372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21848DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.329312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21842DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.328892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21829DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21788DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 28.572 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21787DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 0.906 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21786DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 25.98 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.467582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal1212Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, all fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996 and 12/08/1999; 1 tilapia fish fillet samples collected on 11/17/1997; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 11/06/2000. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.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.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)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, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.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  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.54332010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal1211Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 7 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 11/06/2000. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.55872010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal122Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986 (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 5/21/1986. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen 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. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed 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.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.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671309Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National 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.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.467562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal66Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Three fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish 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 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. 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).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671312DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National 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.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671311DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The 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.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.355022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168293DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.353232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167761DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.353062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167760DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 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).1.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  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.352802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167748DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven 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.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.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  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis 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.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven 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. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline 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.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.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.55982010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.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.Fish tissue analysisBasin 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).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection o