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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 8 - Santa Ana Region

Water Body Name: Lee Lake (Riverside County)
Water Body ID: CAL8013400020111122081909
Water Body Type: Lake & Reservoir
 
DECISION ID
95496
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
Pollutant: Aldrin
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion 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 are 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 95496, Aldrin
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81701
 
Pollutant: Aldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95552
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence for a single sample are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms and Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criteria.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds beneficial use criteria 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 are 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 95552, Chlordane
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81703
 
Pollutant: Chlordane
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 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. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95552, Chlordane
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81702
 
Pollutant: Chlordane
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95231
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms and Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criteria.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms and Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criteria. 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 are 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 95231, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81699
 
Pollutant: Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95231, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81700
 
Pollutant: Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 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. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95553
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence for a single sample are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms beneficial use criterion and zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms beneficial use criterion and zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criterion. 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 95553, Dieldrin
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81704
 
Pollutant: Dieldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95553, Dieldrin
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81705
 
Pollutant: Dieldrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One composite was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 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. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95258
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence for a single sample are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms and Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criteria,

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 (0) of one (1) sample exceeds beneficial use criteria 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 are 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 95258, Endosulfan
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81706
 
Pollutant: Endosulfan
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endosulfan, Total concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95258, Endosulfan
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81707
 
Pollutant: Endosulfan
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)
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: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95554
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence for a single sample are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms and Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criteria.

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 (0) of one (1) sample exceeds beneficial use criteria 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 are 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 95554, Endrin
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81710
 
Pollutant: Endrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95554, Endrin
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81711
 
Pollutant: Endrin
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)
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: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95117
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion 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 are 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 95117, Heptachlor
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81712
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95118
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms beneficial use criterion and zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms beneficial use criterion and zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criterion. 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 are 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 95118, Heptachlor epoxide
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81717
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor epoxide
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95118, Heptachlor epoxide
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81718
 
Pollutant: Heptachlor epoxide
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One composite was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 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. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Guideline Reference: Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95119
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion 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 are 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 95119, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81691
 
Pollutant: Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 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. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Guideline Reference: Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95120
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence for a single sample are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms and Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criteria.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms and Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criteria. 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 are 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 95120, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81692
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95120, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81693
 
Pollutant: Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 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. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.
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: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95176
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
Pollutant: Mercury
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion 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 are 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 95176, Mercury
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81694
 
Pollutant: Mercury
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Sixteen composites (1 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Composites were not spatially independent (as defined in the Listing Policy) and so were averaged. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg. This is assuming a 32 g/day consumption rate (USEPA, 2001).
Guideline Reference: Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95177
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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 are 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 95177, Mirex
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81695
 
Pollutant: Mirex
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One composite was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Guideline Reference: Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95178
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two (2) lines of evidence for a single sample are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One (1) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms beneficial use criterion and zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criterion.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. One (1) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Commercial or Recreational Collection of Fish, Shellfish, or Organisms beneficial use criterion and zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use criterion. 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 are 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 95178, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81697
 
Pollutant: PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). 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: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 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. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95178, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81696
 
Pollutant: PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). 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: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.
Guideline Reference: National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
 
 
DECISION ID
95179
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion.

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 (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion 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 are 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 95179, Selenium
Region 8     
Lee Lake (Riverside County)
 
LOE ID: 81698
 
Pollutant: Selenium
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Fish fillet
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Lee Lake (Riverside County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).
Data Reference: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA
  Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008
  Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening Survey
  Cruise report for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioaccumulation screening study in California lakes and reservoirs year two (FY 07-08). Sampling dates: April 2008 - November 2008.
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin
 
Evaluation Guideline: The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)
Guideline Reference: Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence for Lee Lake (Riverside County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lee Lake/Corona Lake - 801PCL162]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: April 2008- November 2008" (SWAMP, 2009).
Temporal Representation: Data was collected on a single day 6/4/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments