Draft California 2020 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Big Lake (Shasta County)
Water Body ID:	CAL5264105020020418103907
Water Body Type:	Lake & Reservoir


DECISION ID	131052	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

Pollutant:	Mercury
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)(2018)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess the pollutant. LOE 60314 is replaced with LOE 225998. LOE 225998 is a reassessment of the same data following the statewide mercury objectives adopted in 2017. WILD beneficial use: LOE 223556: 0 of 1 samples exceed the mercury objective and consist of 14 trophic level 3 and 4 prey fish. For this sample, all fish were collected between February and July of the same calendar year. COMM beneficial use: LOE 223531: 0 of 1 samples exceed the mercury objective and consist of 16 trophic level 3 fish. Fish used in the COMM assessment are limited to lengths that are within Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife legal size limits applicable to this waterbody. LOE 225998: 0 of 1 samples exceed the mercury objective and consist of 30 trophic level 3 fish. Fish used in the COMM assessment are limited to lengths that are within Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife legal size limits applicable to this waterbody. 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 CWA 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. 0 of 1 samples exceed the objective for the WILD beneficial use. 0 of 2 samples exceed the objective for the COMM beneficial use. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	This decision was made by SWRCB staff.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 131052, Mercury	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

223556

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Wildlife Contamination in Lakes and Resrv data for Big Lake (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. All fish collected between February and July of the same calendar year with a reported length of 50-150 mm were averaged into a single sample, independent or species of trophic level, for comparison with the objective. This LOE consists of a total of 14 fish, which were aggregated into 1 annual averages, consisting of 2 fish species (6 composite(s) of Hitch each composed of 1 fish per composite, 8 composite(s) of Bluegill each composed of 1 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

The Statewide Prey Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of Wildlife Habitat comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.05 mg/Kg wet weight whole fish samples of any fish species between 50 to 150 mm in total length collected between February 1 and July 31. (SWRCB Resolution No. 2017-0027)

Guideline Reference:

Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 526PBL034.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2013-07-23 and 2013-07-23. When composited fish were collected over multiple days, the first day of fish collection was used as the sample date in the LOE, both for LOE writing, and for averaging period purposes.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 131052, Mercury	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

223531

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Wildlife Contamination in Lakes and Resrv data for Big Lake (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 3 fish. The concentration of Mercury in fish collected within the same calendar year, for the same trophic level were averaged into a single sample for comparison with the objective. A total of 16 fish were aggregated into 1 annual averages, which consisted of 1 fish species (8 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite). This LOE does not contain data from fish who's average length was outside of the legal size limits as described by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fishing Regulations.

Data Reference:

Habitat, Tissue data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 5.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

The Statewide Sport Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of the Commercial and Sport Fishing beneficial comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.2 mg/Kg wet weight skinless fillet samples of trophic level 3, or trophic level 4 fish (whichever is highest in the water body) over a one year averaging period. Trophic levels of applicable fish are defined in, but not limited to those in Attachment C of the Final Regulatory Language document (Appendix A) of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0027.

Guideline Reference:

Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 526PBL034.

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPrP 2008

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 131052, Mercury	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

225998

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Contamination in Lakes and Resrv data for Big Lake (Shasta County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 3 fish. The concentration of Mercury in fish collected within the same calendar year, for the same trophic level were averaged into a single sample for comparison with the objective. A total of 30 fish were aggregated into 1 annual averages, which consisted of 2 fish species (2 composite(s) of Sacramento Sucker each composed of 5 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). This LOE does not contain data from fish who's average length was outside of the legal size limits as described by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fishing Regulations.

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 526PBL034.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2008-07-01 and 2008-07-01. When composited fish were collected over multiple days, the first day of fish collection was used as the sample date in the LOE, both for LOE writing, and for averaging period purposes.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	80313	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A minimum of sixteen samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 80313, Aldrin	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60267

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One composite fish tissue sample was assessed. The composite sample consisted of fillets from 5 Sacramento sucker. 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

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

Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basins)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 Big Lake (Shasta County) was collected at [ Big Lake - 526PBL034]. Samples were collected from one location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the 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: April 2008-November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

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 "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	80168	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for cold freshwater habitat and zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. 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 of one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for cold freshwater habitat and zero of one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms. These sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support ratings. A minimum of sixteen samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 80168, Chlordane	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60277

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 Big Lake (Shasta County) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Lake - 526PBL034]. Samples were collected from one location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the 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: April 2008-November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 80168, Chlordane	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60278

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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 Big Lake (Shasta County) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Lake - 526PBL034]. 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: April 2008-November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	81436	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of zero sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of zero sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 81436, Dieldrin	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60279

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 81436, Dieldrin	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60285

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	82757	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 82757, Endrin	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60287

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 82757, Endrin	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60286

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	88156	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. 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 CWA 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. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 88156, Heptachlor	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60296

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	88105	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 88105, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60297

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 88105, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60298

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	87616	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM and 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 87616, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60306

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	88215	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 88215, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60308

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 88215, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60307

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	87615	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM and 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 87615, Mirex	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60315

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	82348	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 CWA 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. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines, and 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 82348, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60325

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 82348, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60316

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	84501	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One composite fish tissue sample, consisting of fillets from 5 Sacramento sucker, was assessed. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline for the COMM beneficial use. 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 CWA 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. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM, and 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 84501, Selenium	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60326

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One composite fish tissue sample, consisting of fillets from 5 Sacramento sucker, was assessed. 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:

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:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Lake (Shasta County) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Lake - 526PBL034]. Samples were collected from one 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: April 2008-November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	80735	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

Pollutant:	Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline. 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 CWA 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. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline, and 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 80735, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60337

Pollutant:

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

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 80735, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60327

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:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1,000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	88047	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 CWA 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. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Zero of one sample exceed the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 88047, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60268

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 88047, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 5
Big Lake (Shasta County)

LOE ID:

60269

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/1/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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