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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 4 - Los Angeles Region

Water Body Name:	Point Mugu Beach
Water Body ID:	CAC4031100020090226103920
Water Body Type:	Coastal & Bay Shoreline


DECISION ID	77869	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2023
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 12 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Use of data assessed against the shellfish standard is inappropriate at this time and will not be considered in the final decision. Only 3 lines of evidence will be considered, because those lines of evidence already include all the data used from the other lines of evidence. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 6 of 589, 0 or 439, and 3 of 626 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. State Board has reviewed this Decision, and has determined that the Listing still applies. The total coliform Shellfish objective is under review, but still applies under the Ocean Plan.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the following changes to the decision: The water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87265

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 75 geomeans exceeded the objective. The samples were collected during dry weather from April through October only. According to the listing Policy section 3.3 a four percent exceedance frequency should be used.

Data Reference:

Data for Region 4 Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The geometric mean standard for fecal coliform states that the fecal coliform density shall not exceed 200 per 100 mL. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters 2009.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Point Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected approximately once a week from 2007 to 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87275

Pollutant:

Total Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed BeachWatch data for Point Mugu Beach to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 89 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Total.

Data Reference:

Data for Region 4 Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Ocean Plan (2009) single sample maximum states that total coliform density shall not exceed 10,000 per 100 mL

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Point Mugu Beach was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Point Mugu Beach]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 4/3/2007-8/24/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87276

Pollutant:

Total Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Region 4 Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The geometric mean standard for total coliform states that the fecal coliform density shall not exceed 1000 per 100 mL. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters 2009.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Point Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected approximately once a week from 2007 to 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87274

Pollutant:

Total Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed bw data for Point Mugu Beach to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 30 of 89 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Total.

Data Reference:

Data for Region 4 Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Ocean Plan (2009) states the following: At all areas where shellfish may be harvested for human consumption, the following bacterial objectives shall be maintained throughout the water column: Ten percent of the samples collected during any 30-day period shall not exceed 230 MPN/100mL.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Point Mugu Beach was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Point Mugu Beach]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 4/3/2007-8/24/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

27887

Pollutant:

Indicator Bacteria

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

2 of 30 samples exceeded the Basin Plan single sample water quality objectives for indicator bacteria in marine water. 0 out of 7 samples exceeded the Basin Plan geometric mean water quality objectives. Water quality samples were taken and analyzed for indicator bacteria consistent with California Code of Regulations Title 17, sections 7958-7961 and related guidance issued by California Department of Public Health .

Data Reference:

County of Ventura coastal beach bacteria monitoring data for AB411.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Basin Plan bacteria objectives state that to protect water contact recreation in marine waters individual samples shall not exceed the following limits: the total coliform density shall not exceed 10000/100 ml; the fecal coliform density shall not exceed 400/100 ml; the enterococcus density shall not exceed 104/100 ml; and the total coliform density shall not exceed 1,000/100 ml, if the ratio of fecal-to-total coliform exceeds 0.1 as single samples. The bacteria objectives also establish that the geometric means of individual samples shall not exceed the following limits: the total coliform density shall not exceed 1000/100 ml, the fecal coliform density shall not exceed 200/100 ml, and the enterococcus density shall not exceed 35/100 ml, as a geometric mean. The bacteria objectives are found in Attachment A of Regional Board Resolution No. 2001-018.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One Ventura County Environmental Health Division sampling location (VC45000) located adjacent to parking lot entry. (Lat: 34.0878, Long: -119.06533).

Temporal Representation:

Grab samples were taken and analyzed on a weekly basis from April 2006 to October 2006 in the summer months of April to October.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data was collected in compliance with the sampling and testing procedures detailed in the California Department of Public Health related guidance.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Draft Guidance for Salt Water Beaches. Last Update: April 10, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, California Department of Health Services

QAPP Information Reference(s):

California Code of Regulations Title 17, sections 7958-7960.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

27886

Pollutant:

Indicator Bacteria

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

138

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

8 of 138 samples exceeded the Basin Plan single sample water quality objectives for indicator bacteria in marine water and 1 out of 32 samples exceeded the geometric mean limits. Water quality samples were taken and analyzed for indicator bacteria consistent with California Code of Regulations Title 17, sections 7958-7961 and related guidance issued by California Department of Public Health .

Data Reference:

County of Ventura coastal beach bacteria monitoring data for AB411.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One Ventura County Environmental Health Division sampling location (VC45000) located adjacent to parking lot entry. (Lat: 34.0878, Long: -119.06533).

Temporal Representation:

Grab samples were taken and analyzed on a weekly basis from January 2003 to October 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data was collected in compliance with the sampling and testing procedures detailed in the California Department of Public Health related guidance.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Draft Guidance for Salt Water Beaches. Last Update: April 10, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, California Department of Health Services

QAPP Information Reference(s):

California Code of Regulations Title 17, sections 7958-7960.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

133459

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

439

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of the 439 geometric means exceeded the objective. The samples were collected during dry weather from April through October in 1999 and from 2005 to 2017. Samples were collected year-round from 2000 to 2004. According to the listing Policy section 4.2, a 10 percent exceedance frequency should be used.

Data Reference:

County of Ventura coastal beach bacteria monitoring data for AB411 1998 to 2017. Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

17 CCR 7958 (in part): The minimum protective bacteriological standards for waters adjacent to public beaches and public water-contact sports areas shall be as follows: (1) Based on the 30-day geometric mean standard, the density of bacteria in water from each sampling station at a public beach or public water contact sports area shall not exceed: 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters, calculated based on the five most recent samples.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California - Bacteria Provisions and a Water Quality Standards Variance Policy

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Point Mugu Beach (45000).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected approximately once a week from 1998 to 2017.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

133458

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

626

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

3 of the 626 single sample exceeded the objective. The samples were collected during dry weather from April through October in 1999 and from 2005 to 2017. Samples were collected year-round from 2000 to 2004. According to the listing Policy section 4.2, a 10 percent exceedance frequency should be used.

Data Reference:

County of Ventura coastal beach bacteria monitoring data for AB411 1998 to 2017. Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

17 CCR 7958 (in part): The minimum protective bacteriological standards for waters adjacent to public beaches and public water-contact sports areas shall be as follows: (1) Based on a single sample, the density of bacteria in water from each sampling station at a public beach or public water contact sports area shall not exceed: 400 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California - Bacteria Provisions and a Water Quality Standards Variance Policy

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Point Mugu Beach (45000).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected approximately once a week from 1998 to 2017.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87264

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed BeachWatch data for Point Mugu Beach to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 89 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal.

Data Reference:

Data for Region 4 Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2009) single sample maximum states that fecal coliform density shall not exceed 400 per 100ml

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Point Mugu Beach was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Point Mugu Beach]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 4/3/2007-8/24/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

133460

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

589

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

6 of the 589 geometric means exceeded the objective. The samples were collected during dry weather from April through October in 1999 and from 2005 to 2017. Samples were collected year-round from 2000 to 2004. According to the listing Policy section 4.2, a 10 percent exceedance frequency should be used.

Data Reference:

County of Ventura coastal beach bacteria monitoring data for AB411 1998 to 2017. Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum protective bacteriological standards for waters adjacent to public beaches and public water-contact sports areas shall be as follows: (1) Based on the six-week rolling geometric mean standard, the density of bacteria in water from each sampling station at a public beach or public water contact sports area shall not exceed: 30 enterococci bacteria per 100 milliliters, generally not less than five samples calculated weekly.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California - Bacteria Provisions and a Water Quality Standards Variance Policy

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Point Mugu Beach (45000).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected approximately once a week from 1998 to 2017.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87263

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Region 4 Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The geometric mean standard for entercoccus states that the fecal coliform density shall not exceed 35 per 100 mL. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters 2009.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Point Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected approximately once a week from 2007 to 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77869, Indicator Bacteria	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87262

Pollutant:

Enterococcus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed BeachWatch data for Point Mugu Beach to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 89 samples exceed the criterion for Enterococci.

Data Reference:

Data for Region 4 Beach Watch.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2009) single sample maximum states that enterococcus density shall not exceed 104 per 100 mL.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Point Mugu Beach was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Point Mugu Beach]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 4/3/2007-8/24/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The samples were collected for the Beach Watch program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98669	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98669, Arsenic	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87255

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Ten percent of the total arsenic result was used to estimate of the amount of inorganic arsenic in the sample; this number was screened against the guideline.

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California's Ocean Plan states that, "The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health".

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in shellfish tissue is 0.0052 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2004)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98723	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98723, Cadmium	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87256

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in shellfish tissue is 3.3 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98726	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98726, Chlordane	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87257

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Chlordane result was calculated by summing the results for chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-nonachlor, alpha- and gamma-chlordane, and oxychlordane.

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in shellfish tissue is 6.0 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	97857	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 97857, Chlorpyrifos	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87258

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in shellfish tissue is 1,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98144	Region 4
Point Mugu 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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98144, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87277

Pollutant:

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

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The result did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. The total DDTs were calculated as the sum of 4,4- and 2,4- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in shellfish tissue is 23 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98724	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98724, Dieldrin	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87259

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in shellfish tissue is 0.49 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	97858	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 97858, Endosulfan	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87260

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Total Endosulfan is the sum of Endosulfan I and Endosulfan II.

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in shellfish tissue is 20,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	97859	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 97859, Endrin	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87261

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in shellfish tissue is 1,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	97860	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 97860, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87266

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in shellfish tissue is 1.4 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	100592	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100592, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87267

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in shellfish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98131	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98131, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87268

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in shellfish tissue is 7.1 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98130	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98130, Mercury	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87269

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in shellfish tissue (wet weight) is 0.2 ppm. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; USEPA, 2001)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98725	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98725, Mirex	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87270

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in shellfish tissue is 0.43 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98089	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98089, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87271

Pollutant:

PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The result exceeded the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. The total PAHs were calculated as the potency equivalency concentration or the sum of the toxic equivalency factors multiplied by the concentrations of: Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Benzo[g,h,i]perylene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, Chrysene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, Phenanthrene, and Pyrene.

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in shellfish tissue is 1.1 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98090	Region 4
Point Mugu 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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98090, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87272

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The result did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in shellfish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98189	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98189, Selenium	Region 4
Point Mugu Beach

LOE ID:

87273

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Shellfish Harvesting

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in shellfish tissue is 11 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MUOS, Old Stairs at Mugu Beach.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/4/2008

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):