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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name: Tomales Bay
Water Body ID: CAB2011403319980929125721
Water Body Type: Bay & Harbor
 
DECISION ID
69795
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
Pollutant: Mercury
Final Listing Decision: Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Sources: A Source Unknown
TMDL Name: Tomales Bay Mercury
TMDL Project Code: 68
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: 07/03/2012
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed 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 against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.

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. Twenty-seven of fifty-five samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. The Tomales Bay Mercury TMDL was approved by USEPA on 7/3/2012.
5. Pursuant to section 4.11 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69795, Mercury
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 4
 
Pollutant: Mercury
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 55
Number of Exceedances: 27
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Twenty-seven out of 55 samples exceeded (Health Advisory for Hg in fish and shellfish). Filet composite and individual samples were collected from the following species: bat ray, brown smooth hound shark, California halibut, cockle, jack smelt, leopard shark, Pacific angle shark, red rock crab, redtail surfperch, and shiner surfperch. Species exceeding guideline were bat ray, brown smooth hound shark, cockle, leopard shark, and Pacific angle shark (TSMP, 2002).
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: San Francisco Bay RWQCB Basin Plan: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Evaluation Guideline: OEHHA Screening Value of 0.3 ug/g for mercury.
Guideline Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Spatial Representation: Seven stations were sampled: Outer Bay, Mid Bay, Blake's Landing, Hamlet, McDonald, Millerton Park, and S. Millerton Ramp.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected in 1998-99.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Data and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Report For Trace Metals - Coastal Fish Contaminant Project Year 1, 1998-1999. Department of Fish and Game.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69795, Mercury
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93284
 
Pollutant: Mercury
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The one sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
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: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98474
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 98474, Arsenic
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93265
 
Pollutant: Arsenic
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The one sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. The fraction of total arsenic in inorganic form was taken to be 0.115%, which was the maximum fraction of inorganic arsenic found in shellfish tissue from SF Bay. This number was screened against the guideline.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
  Contaminant Concentrations in Fish from San Francisco Bay, 2000
  Calculating Fraction of Inorganic Arsenic in SF Bay Fish and Shellfish
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Advisory Tissue Level for arsenic in shellfish tissue is 0.52 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 21 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in ten thousand. (Brodberg, R.K., and G.A. Pollock, 1999; Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2004)

Advisory Tissue Levels (ATLs), while still conferring no significant health risk to
individuals consuming sport fish in the quantities shown over a lifetime, were developed
with the recognition that there are unique health benefits associated with fish
consumption and that the advisory process should be expanded beyond a simple risk
paradigm in order to best promote the overall health of the fish consumer. ATLs provide
a number of recommended fish servings that correspond to the range of contaminant
concentrations found in fish and are used to provide consumption advice to prevent
consumers from being exposed to more than the average daily reference dose for noncarcinogens
or to a risk level greater than 1x10-4 for carcinogens (not more than one
additional cancer case in a population of 10,000 people consuming fish at the given
consumption rate over a lifetime). ATLs are designed to encourage consumption of fish
that can be eaten in quantities likely to provide significant health benefits, while
discouraging consumption of fish that, because of contaminant concentrations, should not
be eaten or cannot be eaten in amounts recommended for improving overall health (eight
ounces total, prior to cooking, per week). ATLs are one of the criteria that will be used
by OEHHA for issuing fish consumption guidelines.
Guideline Reference: Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Guideline Reference: Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.
 
Spatial Representation: Samples are collected by hand from three sub-locations for each site. The composite samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98187
Region 2     
Tomales 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 is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 98187, Cadmium
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93266
 
Pollutant: Cadmium
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The one sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
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: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98738
Region 2     
Tomales 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 one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 98738, Chlordane
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93270
 
Pollutant: Chlordane
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Chlordane result was calculated by summing the results for chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-nonachlor, alpha- and gamma-chlordane, and oxychlordane.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98739
Region 2     
Tomales 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 one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 98739, Chlorpyrifos
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93271
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98032
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 98032, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93291
 
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: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. The total DDTs were calculated as the sum of 4,4- and 2,4- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
97975
Region 2     
Tomales 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 zero sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. It is not known if the sample exceeds the guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is 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 97975, Dieldrin
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93272
 
Pollutant: Dieldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The detected not quantifiable result was not included in the assessment since the reporting limit was above the evaluation guideline. MDL were provided by NOAA Federal and RL were calculated by multiplying 3.18 by the MDL.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
97868
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 97868, Endosulfan
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93276
 
Pollutant: Endosulfan
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Total Endosulfan result was calculated by summing the results for 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: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
97869
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 97869, Endrin
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93277
 
Pollutant: Endrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
97870
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 97870, Heptachlor epoxide
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93278
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor epoxide
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
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: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
97871
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 97871, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93282
 
Pollutant: Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98595
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 98595, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93283
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98188
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Zero of one samples exceed the OEHHA guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1.
4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98188, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93283
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
97976
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of zero sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. It is not known if the sample exceeds the guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is 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 97976, Mirex
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93287
 
Pollutant: Mirex
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
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: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
97977
Region 2     
Tomales 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

Zero of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 97977, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93288
 
Pollutant: PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. The total 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: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98030
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
Pollutant: PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

One of one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did exceed 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 98030, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93289
 
Pollutant: PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The result did exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.
Data Reference: State Mussel Watch Program Data 1977-2000; Winter 2007-Winter 2009. State Water Resources Control Board
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
98031
Region 2     
Tomales 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 one sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. The one sample did not exceed 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 98031, Selenium
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 93290
 
Pollutant: Selenium
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Shellfish
 
Beneficial Use: Shellfish Harvesting
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Shellfish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The one sample did not exceed the guideline. Data were reported on a dry weight basis and were converted to a wet weight basis by multiplying the dry-weight concentration by a factor of 1 minus the percentage of moisture content expressed as a decimal.
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: Many pollutants can accumulate on particles, in sediment, or bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)
 
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 samples were collected from site Tomales Bay Spenger's Residence (TBSR).
Temporal Representation: Representative samples of locally abundant species were collected during the winter on 2/25/2009
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Samples were collected as part of the State Water Board's Mussel Watch Program which is a part of the National Oceanic Administration's (NOAAs) National Status and Trends (NS&T). Mussels are shipped to NOAAs contract labs for analysis of trace constituents and mussel condition. Analytical protocols follow those approved by NOAAs NS&T Program Additional background information can be found at:
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
69597
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
Pollutant: Nutrients
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: 2029
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69597, Nutrients
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 3712
 
Pollutant: Nutrients
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Not Recorded
 
Beneficial Use: Estuarine Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:
Objective/Criterion Reference:
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Unspecified
Temporal Representation: Unspecified
Environmental Conditions: Unspecified
QAPP Information: Unspecified
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
68916
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
Pollutant: Sedimentation/Siltation
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: 2013
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68916, Sedimentation/Siltation
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 3713
 
Pollutant: Sedimentation/Siltation
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Not Recorded
 
Beneficial Use: Estuarine Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:
Objective/Criterion Reference:
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Unspecified
Temporal Representation: Unspecified
Environmental Conditions: Unspecified
QAPP Information: Unspecified
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
70378
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
Pollutant: Pathogens
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Sources: A Source Unknown
TMDL Name: Tomales Bay Pathogens
TMDL Project Code: 10
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: 01/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. A TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. The Tomales Bay Pathogens TMDL was approved by RWQCB in September 2005 and subsequently approved by USEPA 1/10/07. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70378, Pathogens
Region 2     
Tomales Bay
 
LOE ID: 5
 
Pollutant: Pathogens
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Not Recorded
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:
Objective/Criterion Reference:
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation:
Temporal Representation:
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):