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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin Region

Water Body Name:	Fig Lake
Water Body ID:	CAL7231000020111217103758
Water Body Type:	Lake & Reservoir


DECISION ID	30678	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30678, Aldrin	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45958

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Six composites (3 fish per cpmposite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	31375	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twelve samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 31375, Arsenic	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46870

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Twelve composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Twelve samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32161	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32161, Cadmium	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46891

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Twelve composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	31376	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 31376, Chlordane	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46871

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 31376, Chlordane	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45959

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32162	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32162, Chlorpyrifos	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46878

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32164	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32164, Diazinon	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46880

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	31377	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 31377, Dieldrin	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46881

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 31377, Dieldrin	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45968

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32167	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32167, Endosulfan	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46882

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. 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.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32167, Endosulfan	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45969

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32168	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32168, Endrin	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46883

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32168, Endrin	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45970

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32159	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32159, Heptachlor	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45979

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32174	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32174, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46885

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32174, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45980

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32165	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32165, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46886

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32170	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32170, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45978

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32170, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46884

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	31378	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 31378, Mercury	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46887

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Twelve composites were generated from two species: common carp and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32166	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six fish tissue samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32166, Mirex	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46888

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.

Guideline Reference:

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

Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32171	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32171, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45981

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32171, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46889

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32176	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32176, Selenium	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46890

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Twelve composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32172	Region 7
Fig Lake

Pollutant:	Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32172, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45967

Pollutant:

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

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32172, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46879

Pollutant:

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

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	32175	Region 7
Fig Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 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 the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32175, Toxaphene	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

45989

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 32175, Toxaphene	Region 7
Fig Lake

LOE ID:

46892

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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