Water Body Name: | Las Tunas Beach |
Water Body ID: | CAX4041200019990922170849 |
Water Body Type: | Coastal & Bay Shoreline |
DECISION ID |
68196 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | Beach Closures |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for delisting under section 4 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the applicable factor, a TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. It is not known if the beach closure information is backed by coliform data. Beach closure information should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it is not a pollutant or toxicity (section 2 of the Listing Policy). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing these listing from the 303(d) Water Quality Limited Segment list because beach closures are not pollutants. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 3532 | ||||
Pollutant: | Beach Closures | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A TMDL and implementation plan has been approved for this water segment-pollutant combination. The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry Weather TMDL was approved by RWQCB on January 24, 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA. The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Wet Weather TMDL was approved by RWQCB on December 12, 2002 and approved by USEPA on June 19, 2003. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
78228 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Santa Monica Bay Historic Pesticides (58) |
TMDL Project Code: | 397 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/26/2012 |
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 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for removing 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. 0 of 1 and 0 of 0 sample exceeded the CRITERIA 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 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria TMDL was approved by USEPA on 07/15/2003 . |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 3880 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. The total DDTs were calculated as the sum of 4,4- and 2,4- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in shellfish tissue is 23 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
89781 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Santa Monica Bay Historic Pesticides (58) |
TMDL Project Code: | 397 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/26/2012 |
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 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the GUIDELINE. 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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. 0 of 0, and 1 of 1 samples exceeded the 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 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The Santa Monica Bay DDTs and PCBs TMDL was approved by USEPA on 03/26/2012 . |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85617 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. 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: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in shellfish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 3881 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
96814 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85565 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Ten percent of the total arsenic result was used to estimate of the amount of inorganic arsenic in the sample; this number was screened against the guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in shellfish tissue is 0.0052 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2004) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96815 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85566 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in shellfish tissue is 3.3 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96871 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85580 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Chlordane result was calculated by summing the results for chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-nonachlor, alpha- and gamma-chlordane, and oxychlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in shellfish tissue is 6.0 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95983 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85581 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in shellfish tissue is 1,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
78229 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85582 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in shellfish tissue is 0.49 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Laurie, G. 2014. Re: Questions about Some KNF Reference Watersheds. E-mail from Greg Laurie, Klamath National Forest staff, to Katharine Carter, Regional Water Board staff. May 27, 2014. | ||||
DECISION ID |
95984 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85590 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Total Endosulfan is the sum of Endosulfan I and Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in shellfish tissue is 20,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96042 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85591 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in shellfish tissue is 1,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96044 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85592 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in shellfish tissue is 1.4 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; 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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96045 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85603 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in shellfish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96104 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85604 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in shellfish tissue is 7.1 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96107 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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)(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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85605 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in shellfish tissue (wet weight) is 0.2 ppm. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; USEPA, 2001) | ||||
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 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96747 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85606 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The detected not quantifiable result was not included in the assessment since the reporting limit was above the evaluation guideline. MDL were provided by NOAA Federal and RL were calculated by multiplying 3.18 by the MDL. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in shellfish tissue is 0.43 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96746 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85616 | ||||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The result did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. The total PAHs were calculated as the potency equivalency concentration or the sum of the toxic equivalency factors multiplied by the concentrations of: Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Benzo[g,h,i]perylene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, Chrysene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, Phenanthrene, and Pyrene. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in shellfish tissue is 1.1 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 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. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
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 | ||||
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: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
96692 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 85618 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Shellfish | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. | ||||
Data Reference: | State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health". | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in shellfish tissue is 11 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Las Tunas Beach Santa Monica Bay (TBSM). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/18/2008 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/ |
||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Major and Trace Element Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006. | ||||
DECISION ID |
68809 |
Region 4 |
Las Tunas Beach |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Santa Monica Bay Beach Closures/Coliform/Bacteria Indicators (48) |
TMDL Project Code: | 392 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 06/19/2003 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Available data shows that standards are currently not being met but a TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Dry Weather TMDL was approved by RWQCB on January 24, 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA. The Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Wet Weather TMDL was approved by RWQCB on December 12, 2002 and approved by USEPA on June 19, 2003. This listing will substitute the previous listing for beach closures. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 3533 | ||||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||