| Water Body Name: | Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach |
| Water Body ID: | CAC3080004120041214185433 |
| Water Body Type: | Coastal & Bay Shoreline |
DECISION ID |
129356 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach |
||
| Pollutant: | Enterococcus |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 36 STV samples exceed the REC-1 enterococci water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 the 36 STV samples exceed the REC-1 enterococci water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters (“Ocean Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use: a fecal coliform water quality objective and an enterococci water quality objective. This waterbody is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy, as applicable, using the enterococci objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address bacteria. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to 2010 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. For enterococci data, Listing Policy sections 3.3 and 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in sections 3.2 and 4.2, as applicable. To use the binomial table that uses a four percent exceedance frequency, the data must be collected from coastal beaches from April 1 through October 31 only. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters (“Ocean Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use: a fecal coliform water quality objective and an enterococci water quality objective. This waterbody is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy, as applicable, using the enterococci objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address bacteria. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to 2010 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. For enterococci data, Listing Policy sections 3.3 and 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in sections 3.2 and 4.2, as applicable. To use the binomial table that uses a four percent exceedance frequency, the data must be collected from coastal beaches from April 1 through October 31 only. |
| 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 applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 19485 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed data for Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Enterococci. | ||||
| Data Reference: | AB 411 Data for 2004 | ||||
| AB 411 Data for 2005 | |||||
| AB 411 Data for 2006 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) states that the single sample maximum for Enterococcus shall not exceed 104 MPN/100 mL. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California. California Ocean Plan 2005. Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach was collected at one AB411 monitoring site (Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Beach) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/25/2005 - 9/6/2005. This includes weekly AB411 monitoring between April 1 and October 31 of each year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA information not available | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 217967 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 36 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality threshold for Enterococcus. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data file of Region 3 Beachwatch Data. Includes data from all coastal counties in Region 3 including: , Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Ventura, and San Mateo counties. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2019) states that the bacteria water quality objective to protect the REC-1 beneficial for all ocean waters for Enterococci is a statistical value threshold (STV) of 110 cfu/100 mL. The STV shall not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected in a calendar month, calculated in a static manner. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): PFB | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2015-01-21 and 2019-06-03 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QAPP for 2020 Monterey County Beachwatch data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Monterey County Beachwatch assessments | ||||
DECISION ID |
129371 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach |
||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 37 SSM exceed the REC-1 fecal coliform water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 the 37 SSM exceed the REC-1 fecal coliform water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters (“Ocean Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use: a fecal coliform water quality objective and an enterococci water quality objective. This waterbody is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy, as applicable, using the fecal coliform objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address bacteria. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to 2010 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. For fecal coliform data, Listing Policy sections 3.3 and 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in sections 3.2 and 4.2, as applicable. To use the binomial table that uses a four percent exceedance frequency, the data must be collected from coastal beaches from April 1 through October 31 only. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters (“Ocean Plan”) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use: a fecal coliform water quality objective and an enterococci water quality objective. This waterbody is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy, as applicable, using the fecal coliform objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Indicator bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, they do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of indicator bacteria in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address bacteria. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the list, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to 2010 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. For fecal coliform data, Listing Policy sections 3.3 and 4.3 instructs to use the binomial distribution table in sections 3.2 and 4.2, as applicable. To use the binomial table that uses a four percent exceedance frequency, the data must be collected from coastal beaches from April 1 through October 31 only. |
| 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 applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 19483 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed data for Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | AB 411 Data for 2004 | ||||
| AB 411 Data for 2005 | |||||
| AB 411 Data for 2006 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) states that the single sample maximum for fecal coliform shall not exceed 400 MPN/100 mL. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California. California Ocean Plan 2005. Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach was collected at one AB411 monitoring site (Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Beach) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 4/25/2005 - 9/6/2005. This includes weekly AB411 monitoring between April 1 and October 31 of each year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA information not available | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 217966 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 37 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Coliform, Fecal. The water quality threshold is based on a Single Sample Maximum (SSM) value that is calculated daily. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data file of Region 3 Beachwatch Data. Includes data from all coastal counties in Region 3 including: , Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Ventura, and San Mateo counties. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2019) states that the Single Sample Maximum fecal coliform density not exceed 400 per 100 mL. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): PFB | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2015-01-21 and 2019-06-03 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QAPP for 2020 Monterey County Beachwatch data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | QAPP for Monterey County Beachwatch assessments | ||||
DECISION ID |
83880 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample exceeded the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77379 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | 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: | 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 Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
83881 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77406 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
81599 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77407 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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 Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
83925 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77408 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
83926 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77409 | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
83968 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77410 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
| 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
83969 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77411 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
| 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
83970 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77413 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | 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: | 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 Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
99735 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77414 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
| 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
84013 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77412 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | 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: | 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 Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
84055 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77415 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
84056 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample was a non detect result and was not included in the assessment since the reporting limit was above the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample was a non detect result and was not included in the assessment since the reporting limit was above the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77416 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
99736 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77417 | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Shellfish surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
| 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
84098 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Beach |
||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample exceeded the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77418 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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 |
84099 |
Region 3 |
Pacific Ocean at Julia Pfeiffer Burns 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is supported using table 3.1. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single shellfish tissue sample did not exceed the evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77419 | ||||
| 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: | Data for this assessment unit was collected by one monitoring project: Statewide Mussel Watch Program (SMWP) | ||||
| 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: | 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: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site Partington Point Julia P. Burns ASBS, PPJB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 4/2/2009 | ||||
| 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): | |||||