Final California 2018 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 9 - San Diego Region

Water Body Name:	Mission Bay
Water Body ID:	CAB9063000020110714002546
Water Body Type:	Bay & Harbor


DECISION ID	83511	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Arsenic. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Arsenic 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 3.1 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 16. 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 83511, Arsenic	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74312

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The one sample did 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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Region: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

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	83512	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Cadmium. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Cadmium 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 83512, Cadmium	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74313

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83513	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Chlordane. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Chlordane 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 83513, Chlordane	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74314

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Region: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses. Pesticides shall not be present at levels which will bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms to levels which are harmful to human health, wildlife or aquatic organisms.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83514	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Chlorpyrifos. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Chlorpyrifos 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 83514, Chlorpyrifos	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74315

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83561	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Dieldrin. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Dieldrin 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 83561, Dieldrin	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74316

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83562	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Endosulfan. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Endosulfan 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 83562, Endosulfan	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74317

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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. Total Endosulfan result was calculated by summing 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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83563	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Endrin. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Endrin 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 83563, Endrin	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74318

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	97661	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Heptachlor epoxide. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide 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 97661, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74319

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83616	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB 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 83616, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74320

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83617	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) 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 83617, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74321

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	83671	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the Zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Mirex. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of Zero samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Mirex 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 83671, Mirex	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74323

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The non detect result was not included in the assessment since the reporting limit was above the evaluation guideline. MDL were provided by NOAA Federal and RL were calculated by multiplying 3.18 by the MDL.

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	82876	Region 9
Mission Bay

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 is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) 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 82876, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

77214

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:

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. 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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	82928	Region 9
Mission Bay

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Selenium. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Selenium 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 82928, Selenium	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74325

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in shellfish tissue is 11 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day. A background dietary 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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	82978	Region 9
Mission Bay

Pollutant:	Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) 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 82978, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74326

Pollutant:

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

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	82979	Region 9
Mission Bay

Pollutant:	Toxicity
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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of Three samples exhibited sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is SUFFICIENT justification AGAINST placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of the Three samples exhibited sediment toxicity 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 82979, Toxicity	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74327

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Estuarine Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Three samples were collected to test for toxicity. One of the three samples exhibited statistically significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Eohaustorius estuarius. Each sample is a sediment composites from three different sites.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants from Ambient Bay and Lagoon, 2003-2005.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control.

Guideline Reference:

Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. June 1994. EPA 600/R-94/025

Spatial Representation:

The the composite samples were 906MB_2003, samples collected at sites 906_MB3L1_2004, 906_MB3M1_2003, and 906_MB3R1_2003. Composite 906MB_2004 samples were collected 906_MB3L1_2004 and 906_MB3R1_2004. Composite 906MB_2005 samples were collected at sites, 906_MB1R1_2005, 906_MB2M1_2005, and 906_MB3R3_2005.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The data was collected under the County of San Diego Ambient Bay and Lagoon Monitoring Project 2003-2005. Annual Report for the Receiving Waters and Urban Runoff Monitoring section covered under the San Diego County Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (RWQCB-Order NO. R9-2007-0001).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

e-mail clarifying QAPP information


DECISION ID	83669	Region 9
Mission Bay

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown \| Atmospheric Deposition
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for Mercury. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient 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. Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the listing policy, there is a published State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Advisory for Eating Fish From San Diego Bay due to PCBs and Mercury.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

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 83669, Mercury	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

95682

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Samples were collected bay-wide as part of the State of California's Coastal Fish Contamination Program (Assembly Bill 2872) and through the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. These data were collected from 1999-2009 and were assessed by State of California staff at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. These data are available in the California Environmental Data Exchange Network Database.

Data Reference:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program data for years 1992-2002 and Coastal Fish Contamination Program for years 1 and 2. State Water Resources Control Board

Contaminants in Fish from the California Coast, 2009-2010: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Advisory and Guidelines for Eating Fish From Mission Bay. October 2013. Section 3.4 of the Listing Policy Specifically states:

"3.4 Health Advisories
A water segment shall be placed on the section 303(d) list if a health advisory against the
consumption of edible resident organisms, or a shellfish harvesting ban has been issued by the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), or Department of Health
Services and there is a designated or existing fish consumption beneficial use for the segment. In
addition, water segment-specific data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for
tissue is exceeded."

This waterbody has a health advisory against the consumption of edible resident fish due to elevated levels of Mercury in fillet tissue.

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 were collected bay-wide as part of the State of California's Coastal Fish Contamination Program (Assembly Bill 2872) and Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected from 1999 to 2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Samples collected and analyzed by State of California monitoring programs. Data and quality assurance/quality control report for trace metals. Coastal fish contaminant project year 2, 1999-2000. Screening Study of Bioaccumulation on
the California Coast Quality Assurance Program Plan 2009.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Data and quality assurance/quality control report for trace metals. Coastal fish contaminant project year 2, 1999-2000

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83669, Mercury	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74322

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite sample was collected from site MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	82927	Region 9
Mission Bay

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient 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. Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the listing policy, there is a published State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Advisory for Eating Fish From San Diego Bay due to PCBs and Mercury.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

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 82927, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

74324

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Shellfish

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Shellfish surveys

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 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. 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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin

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 MBVB, Mission Bay Ventura Bridge.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 12/7/2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82927, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 9
Mission Bay

LOE ID:

95681

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Toxic Substances Monitoring Program data for years 1992-2002 and Coastal Fish Contamination Program for years 1 and 2. State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected bay-wide as part of the State of California's Coastal Fish Contamination Program (Assembly Bill 2872) and Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

Temporal Representation:

Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected from 1999 to 2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Data and quality assurance/quality control report for trace metals. Coastal fish contaminant project year 2, 1999-2000