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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Hume Lake
Water Body ID:	CAL5523428120020418144415
Water Body Type:	Lake & Reservoir


DECISION ID	130978	Region 5
Hume Lake

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)(2018)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess mercury concentrations in fish tissue. LOE 64841 is replaced with LOE 225959. LOE 225959 is a reassessment of the same data following the statewide mercury objectives adopted in 2017. COMM beneficial use: LOE 225959: 0 of 1 samples exceed the mercury objective and consist of 10 trophic level 3 fish. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceed the objective for the COMM beneficial use. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This decision was made by SWRCB staff.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 130978, Mercury	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

225959

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Contamination in Lakes and Resrv data for Hume Lake to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 3 fish. The concentration of Mercury in fish collected within the same calendar year, for the same trophic level were averaged into a single sample for comparison with the objective. A total of 10 fish were aggregated into 1 annual averages, which consisted of 1 fish species (2 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The Statewide Sport Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of the Commercial and Sport Fishing beneficial comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.2 mg/Kg wet weight skinless fillet samples of trophic level 3, or trophic level 4 fish (whichever is highest in the water body) over a one year averaging period. Trophic levels of applicable fish are defined in, but not limited to those in Attachment C of the Final Regulatory Language document (Appendix A) of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0027.

Guideline Reference:

Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 552PHL078.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2008-07-08 and 2008-07-08. When composited fish were collected over multiple days, the first day of fish collection was used as the sample date in the LOE, both for LOE writing, and for averaging period purposes.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	75948	Region 5
Hume Lake

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2027
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of 24 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. 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. Nine of 24 samples exceed the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 75948, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

6776

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

9 of the 24 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Dissolved Oxygen. The exceeded results are as follows: 6/13/2002 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Dam Site had a result of 6.72mg/L. 5/26/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Dam Site had a result of 6.24mg/L. 6/13/2002 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek had a result of 6.51mg/L. 9/25/2002 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek had a result of 6.58mg/L. 5/26/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek had a result of 5.75mg/L. 10/5/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek had a result of 5.47mg/L. 6/13/2002 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek had a result of 6.83mg/L. 5/26/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek had a result of 6.25mg/L. 10/5/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek had a result of 6.98mg/L.

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Basin Plan Objective sets the minimum Dissolved Oxygen content at 7 mg/L

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Dam Site. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Apr 26 2002 to Oct 5 2004

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	80962	Region 5
Hume Lake

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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of sixteen 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 80962, Aldrin	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64810

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One composite fish tissue sample was assessed. The composite sample consisted of fillets from 5 rainbow trout. 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:

Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Hume Lake was collected at [ Hume Lake - 552PHL078]. Samples were collected from one location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the 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 7/8/2008.

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	93846	Region 5
Hume Lake

Pollutant:	Ammonia
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:	All of the data was reported as "NH4N" (ionized ammonia), for which there are no criteria and, therefore, which cannot be assessed. Based on the readily available data and information, the Decision is Do Not List because no appropriate data was available for correct assessment.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	All of the data was reported as "NH4N" (ionized ammonia), for which there are no criteria and, therefore, which cannot be assessed. Based on the readily available data and information, the Decision is Do Not List because no appropriate data was available for correct assessment.

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 93846, Ammonia	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

95643

Pollutant:

Ammonia

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

All of the data was reported as "NH4N" (ionized ammonia), for which there are no criteria and, therefore, which cannot be assessed.
Total ammonia data (if there were any) should have been used to assess for WARM/COLD and MUN beneficial uses. There is no total ammonia ("Ammonia as N") data for this water body.

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain un-ionized ammonia in amounts which adversely affect beneficial uses. In no case shall the discharge of wastes cause concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters. [Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004]

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

All of the data was reported as "NH4N" (ionized ammonia), for which there are no criteria and, therefore, which cannot be assessed.
Total ammonia data (if there is any) should be used to assess for WARM/COLD and MUN beneficial uses. There is no total ammonia ("Ammonia as N") data for this water body.

Guideline Reference:

1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Dam Site. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from September 25, 2001 to October 5, 2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93846, Ammonia	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

20465

Pollutant:

Ammonia

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of the 18 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Ammonia.

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

Ammonia levels should not exceed 30 mg/L (USEPA Health Advisory)

Guideline Reference:

2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Dam Site. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Sep 25 2002 to Oct 5 2004

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93846, Ammonia	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

6775

Pollutant:

Ammonia

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of the 17 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Ammonia.

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

Ammonia levels should not to exceed the calculated limit. Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection (Salmonid present) Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) (1-hour Average (mg N/L)) calculated based on the following formula: CMC = (0.275/(1 + 107.204-pH)) + (39.0/(1 + 10pH-7.204)) which incorporates pH (US EPA, 2005: Appendix C)

Guideline Reference:

1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Dam Site. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Sep 25 2002 to Oct 5 2004

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	90211	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90211, Chlordane	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64818

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - 552PHL078]. Samples were collected from one location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the 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 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 90211, Chlordane	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64821

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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 Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - 552PHL078]. 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 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	81859	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of zero sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COMM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of zero sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 81859, Dieldrin	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64823

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One composite fish tissue sample was generated from 5 rainbow trout fillets; however, since the evaluation guideline exceed the reporting limit, the sample was not assessed. 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 sample 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:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one 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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 81859, Dieldrin	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64822

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	83001	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COMM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COLD and zero of one sample exceeds the evaluation guideline for COMM. 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 83001, Endrin	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64826

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 83001, Endrin	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64825

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	90406	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90406, Heptachlor	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64829

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	90462	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90462, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64830

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 90462, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64831

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one 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:

Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	90463	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90463, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64835

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	92440	Region 5
Hume Lake

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
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 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform. Zero of 34 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for E. coli. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform and zero of 34 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for E. coli., 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 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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 92440, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

6911

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 16 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for E.Coli Bacteria.

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 235 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)

Guideline Reference:

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Dam Site. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Apr 26 2002 to May 26 2004

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92440, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

7147

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 16 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for E.Coli Bacteria.

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 409 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)

Guideline Reference:

2001. Public Health Goal for Uranium in Drinking Water. April 2001

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Dam Site. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Apr 26 2002 to May 26 2004

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92440, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64827

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the two samples did not exceed the evaluation guideline value for Escherichia coli.

Data Reference:

RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The U.S. EPA recommended objective for a single-sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated-beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL.

Guideline Reference:

40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule [Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220]

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek - 552HUM020]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90464	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90464, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64836

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 90464, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64837

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	90465	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90465, Mirex	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64842

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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. A cooking reduction factor of one 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:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	83099	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 83099, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64847

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 83099, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64843

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	71603	Region 5
Hume Lake

Pollutant:	Specific Conductivity
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 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 27 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 27 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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 71603, Specific Conductivity	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

20826

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 24 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the "recommended" Secondary MCL of 900 uS/cm for electrical conductivity

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The secondary MCLs for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The ¿recommended¿ level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses

Objective/Criterion Reference:

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Hume Lake at Dam Site, at Long Meadow Creek, and at Tenmile Creek

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between April 26, 2002 and October 5, 2004

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71603, Specific Conductivity	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64824

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the 3 samples did not exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), an upper level (1,600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2,200 uS/cm). The recommended level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is protective of all drinking water uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek - 552HUM020]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90521	Region 5
Hume Lake

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
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 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the 3 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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. Three of the 3 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD 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 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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 90521, Temperature, water	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64851

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 3 of 3 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

Inland Fishes of California (1976)

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek - 552HUM020]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	82180	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82180, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64856

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:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1,000 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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 82180, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64857

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	73576	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73576, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64816

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan 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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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 73576, alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64817

Pollutant:

alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fish tissue analysis

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 one is applied for skin-off.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 7/8/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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	74872	Region 5
Hume Lake

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of the 26 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. Additionally, one of the three samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN and Water Contact Recreation. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of 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. Five of 26 water sample measurements exceed the water quality objective for COLD, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. One of three water sample measurements exceed the water quality objective for MUN and Water Contact Recreation beneficial uses, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74872, pH	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

6777

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

4 of the 23 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. The exceeded results are as follows: 11/13/2003 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Dam Site had a result of 8.4-. 5/26/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Dam Site had a result of 9.14-. 10/5/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Dam Site had a result of 8.91-. 5/26/2004 - a sample taken at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek had a result of 8.94-.

Data Reference:

SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.3 (Basin Plan Objective)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Dam Site. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Long Meadow Creek. Samples were collected at Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Apr 26 2002 to Oct 5 2004

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74872, pH	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64849

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that one of 3 sample results exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.3. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek - 552HUM020]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74872, pH	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64848

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that one of 3 sample results exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.3. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek - 552HUM020]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74872, pH	Region 5
Hume Lake

LOE ID:

64850

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that one of 3 sample results exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.3. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Hume Lake was collected at one monitoring site [ Hume Lake - Tenmile Creek - 552HUM020]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan