Final California 2018 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 3 - Central Coast Region

Water Body Name: Uvas Reservoir
Water Body ID: CAL3052001220020124163614
Water Body Type: Lake & Reservoir
 
DECISION ID
84730
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Mercury
Final Listing Decision: Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Sources: A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2018
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.5 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twelve of the twelve fish tissue samples exceed the evaluation guideline set to protect for the commercial beneficial use.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.

3. Twelve of the twelve fish tissue samples exceed the evaluation guideline set to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.
 
State Board 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 84730, Mercury
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58884
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Eleven composites (1 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Composites were averaged for the location. One composite could not be used in the assessment due to a total fish length that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): 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.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. This is assuming a 32 g/day consumption rate (USEPA, 2001).
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84730, Mercury
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 31015
 
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: 11
Number of Exceedances: 11
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Fish were collected for tissue analysis at one location from Uvas Reservoir. A total of 11 sample composites were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). A total of 11 out of 11 samples exceeded the OHHEA fish tissue screening value for human health.
Data Reference: Data associated with report entitled: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
 
SWAMP 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, Central Coast Basin, General Objective Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries).
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3)
 
Evaluation Guideline: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference: Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected from one location in Uvas Reservoir. As discussed in the Lakes and Reservoirs Report (SWAMP, 2009), individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody with an approximate one-mile diameter, from which multiple fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody. Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected on July 5, 2007
Environmental Conditions: There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in "Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84591
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Aldrin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84591, Aldrin
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58586
 
Pollutant: Aldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84636
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Chlordane
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use, nor did the single fish tissue sample exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guidelines. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84636, Chlordane
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58852
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84636, Chlordane
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58847
 
Pollutant: Chlordane
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84782
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use, nor did the single fish tissue sample exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guidelines. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84782, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58909
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84782, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58920
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84637
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use. The single fish tissue sample exceeded the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses but did exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84637, Dieldrin
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58853
 
Pollutant: Dieldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84637, Dieldrin
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58858
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84638
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Endrin
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use, nor did the single fish tissue sample exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guidelines. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84638, Endrin
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58859
 
Pollutant: Endrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84638, Endrin
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58860
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)
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
Guideline Reference: 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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84682
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84682, Heptachlor
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58865
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84683
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use. Zero out of zero fish tissue samples exceeded the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. One composite was 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. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84683, Heptachlor epoxide
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58871
 
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: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One composite was 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: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999)
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
Guideline Reference: Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84683, Heptachlor epoxide
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58866
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor epoxide
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84684
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84684, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58872
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)
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
Guideline Reference: 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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84729
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use, nor did the single fish tissue sample exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guidelines. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84729, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58877
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84729, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58878
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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
Guideline Reference: 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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84732
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Mirex
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of zero fish tissue samples exceeded the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. One composite was 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. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. Zero out of zero fish tissue samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84732, Mirex
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58885
 
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: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One composite was 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: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992)
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
Guideline Reference: Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
84780
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use. The single fish tissue sample exceeded the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses but did exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 84780, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58897
 
Pollutant: PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). 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: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): 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.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 84780, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58898
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). 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: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): 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.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
99966
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: Selenium
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 99966, Selenium
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58908
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): 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.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
85437
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
Pollutant: alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
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 section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the aquatic life beneficial use, nor did the single fish tissue sample exceed the evaluation guideline applied to protect for the commercial beneficial use. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1.

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. The single fish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guidelines. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board 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 85437, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58984
 
Pollutant: alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall reach concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.  There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endosulfan, Total 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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85437, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Region 3     
Uvas Reservoir
 
LOE ID: 58846
 
Pollutant: alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Uvas Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (2011): There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin
 
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. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)
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
Guideline Reference: 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 Uvas Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Uvas Reservoir - 305PUR072]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007-March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 7/5/2007.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments