Final California 2024 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name:	Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point
Water Body ID:	CAC2013001120110712234110
Water Body Type:	Coastal & Bay Shoreline


DECISION ID	154564	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available

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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 154564, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

315217

Pollutant:

PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample did not exceed the screening level. 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:

OEHHA published a risk-based concentration protective of public health for the concentration of PAH in San Francisco Bay fish and shellfish following the M/V Cosco Busan oil spill. OEHHA determined that a concentration of 43.7 ppb (wet weight) would result in one expected additional cancer case for a population of 10,000 individuals consuming one meal per week of San Francisco Bay fish or shellfish. This calculated concentration assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32.5 g/day for a 30-year exposure over a 70-year lifetime (OEHHA 2007).

Guideline Reference:

Report on the Safety of Consuming Fish and Shellfish from Areas Impacted by the M/V Cosco Busan Oil Spill in San Francisco Bay, California (OEHHA, 2007)

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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	98013	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98013, Arsenic	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92432

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one 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. The fraction of total arsenic in inorganic form was taken to be 0.115%, which was the maximum fraction of inorganic arsenic found in shellfish tissue from SF Bay.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

Contaminant Concentrations in Fish from San Francisco Bay, 2000

Calculating Fraction of Inorganic Arsenic in SF Bay Fish and Shellfish

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

California Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California 2009

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Advisory Tissue Level for arsenic in shellfish tissue is 0.52 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 ten thousand. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2004)

Advisory Tissue Levels (ATLs), while still conferring no significant health risk to
individuals consuming sport fish in the quantities shown over a lifetime, were developed
with the recognition that there are unique health benefits associated with fish
consumption and that the advisory process should be expanded beyond a simple risk
paradigm in order to best promote the overall health of the fish consumer. ATLs provide
a number of recommended fish servings that correspond to the range of contaminant
concentrations found in fish and are used to provide consumption advice to prevent
consumers from being exposed to more than the average daily reference dose for noncarcinogens
or to a risk level greater than 1x10-4 for carcinogens (not more than one
additional cancer case in a population of 10,000 people consuming fish at the given
consumption rate over a lifetime). ATLs are designed to encourage consumption of fish
that can be eaten in quantities likely to provide significant health benefits, while
discouraging consumption of fish that, because of contaminant concentrations, should not
be eaten or cannot be eaten in amounts recommended for improving overall health (eight
ounces total, prior to cooking, per week). ATLs are one of the criteria that will be used
by OEHHA for issuing fish consumption guidelines.

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98014	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98014, Cadmium	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92435

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98015	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98015, Chlordane	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92436

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The results 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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98065	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98065, Chlorpyrifos	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92437

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98060	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98060, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92549

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98066	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98066, Dieldrin	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92532

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98067	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98067, Endosulfan	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92533

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98068	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98068, Endrin	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92534

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98122	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98122, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92541

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	100058	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100058, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92542

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98123	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98123, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92543

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98003	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98003, Mercury	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92544

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98004	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98004, Mirex	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92545

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The non detect 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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98058	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98058, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92547

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample exceeded the screening level. 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:

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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):


DECISION ID	98059	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98059, Selenium	Region 2
Pacific Ocean at Duxbury Reef, Duxbury Point

LOE ID:

92548

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 consuption 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 DRDP.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/17/2009

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):