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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Mustang Creek (Merced County)
Water Body ID:	CAR5356000020080808193633
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	73737	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	cis-permethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected Attainment Date:	2037
Implementation Action Other than TMDL:	Resolution R5-2017-0057, a Basin Plan Amendment for Pyrethroid Discharges, established a conditional prohibition of pyrethroids discharges. The Amendment requires agricultural dischargers of pyrethroids with known pyrethroid impairments develop and implement management plans through the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program to reduce pyrethroid pesticides discharges. Mustang Creek (Merced County) was identified in the resolution and should obtain the narrative water quality objective for toxicity as soon as practicable, but no later than 20 years from the resolution date.
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and of the Listing Policy. Under 4.11 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA section 303(d) List because a the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified time frame. 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 nine samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for WARM and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. This listing is being addressed through the implementation of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) General Orders that have been approved by the RWQCB. The ILRP will implement management plans to address the pollutant and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards before or by 2037. 5. 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73737, cis-permethrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

21753

Pollutant:

cis-permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifty-four water samples (including many replicate samples) were collected from five locations on Mustang Creek, between November 2002 and March 2004.
Thirty-eight of the 54 samples had concentrations less than quantitation limits and quantitation limits (0.0060 ug/L) greater than the Evaluation Guideline value. Therefore, the results for these samples were not used in this analysis in accordance with section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy.
The sixteen remaining usable water samples were collected at either at the bifurcation structure near Ballico (8 samples) or at Monte Vista Avenue near Montpelier (8 samples). Due to replicate (duplicate and triplicate) analyses, the 16 water samples represent a total of only 9 date-averaged water sample concentrations for both locations. Nine of the 9 averaged water concentrations exceeded the Evaluation Guideline value of 0.0033 ug/L.

Data Reference:

National Water Quality Assessment database, San Joaquin and Tulare Basins data

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.

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:

Where valid testing has developed 96 hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms (the concentration that kills one half of the test organisms in 96 hours), the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life. Other available technical information on the pesticide (such as Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations and No Observed Effect Levels), the water bodies and the organisms involved will be evaluated to determine if lower concentrations are required to meet the narrative objectives. The 24-hour LC50 for cis-permethrin, for the most sensitive species (Tanytarsus sp., a midge) is 0.033 ug/L. Therefore, the one-tenth LC50 value for the cis-permethrin Evaluation Guideline is 0.0033 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Water samples were collected from Mustang Creek at five locations: at the bifurcation structure near Ballico (19 samples); at Monte Vista Avenue near Montpelier (23 samples); at Newport Road near Ballico (7 samples); below reservoir near Oakdale Road near Montpelier (4 samples); and at 1.1 mile south of Monte Vista Avenue near Montpelier (1 sample).

Temporal Representation:

The sixteen water samples with usable data were collected from Mustang Creek at the bifurcation structure near Ballico on 4, 18, 19, 25, and 26 February 2004, and at Monte Vista Avenue near Montpelier on 2, 3, 18, and 25 February 2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. In accordance with section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy, data from major monitoring programs in California and Published USGS reports are considered of adequate quality.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	73326	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture
Expected Attainment Date:	2026
Implementation Action Other than TMDL:	This water body segment-pollutant combination is being addressed through Basin Plan requirements established under CRWQCB-CVR resolution R5-20140041, and implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural discharges. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers regulated by the CRWQCB-CVR WDRs. The Basin Plan identifies numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are achieved.
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This water body - pollutant combination is being considered for removal from the 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.11, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The evidence indicates that chlorpyrifos concentrations are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but existing pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards because the impairment is being addressed by an enforceable regulatory program, other than a TMDL, that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Ten of 35 available calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion. These exceedances occurred more than once every three years. 4. Twenty-six of 70 available 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion. These exceedances occurred more than once every three years. 5. The sources of chlorpyrifos to this water body segment have been identified as offsite movement of chlorpyrifos from chlorpyrifos applications by the agricultural dischargers, who are regulated under enforceable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). 6. In 2016, the Board adopted Resolution R5-2014-0041 establishing Basin Plan amendments that primarily address the regulation of agricultural pesticide runoff and discharges of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the Central Valley which are implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural dischargers. The amendments established numeric water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos and a control program to ensure that the objectives will be attained within a reasonable, specified time frame. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. 8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 9. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information described in the lines of evidence associated with this decision, the Regional Water Board determined that this water body and pollutant combination is still impaired and that it should be listed as being addressed by another regulatory program that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame because an alternative State regulatory program is in place which can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:	The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for chlorpyrifos as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of chlorpyrifos into surface water. 8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 9. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met.

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 73326, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

95471

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 14 samples exceed the chronic exposure criterion for chlorpyrifos.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that 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 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater chronic criterion value for chlorpyrifos is 0.014 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73326, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23131

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifty-four water samples were collected from Mustang Creek from November 2000 to March 2004, representing nineteen calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations and fifty-four 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations. Eight of the nineteen calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.015 ug/L. Twenty-five of fifty-four 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.025 ug/L.

Data Reference:

National Water Quality Assessment database, San Joaquin and Tulare Basins data

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

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:

California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Chlorpyrifos Criteria: 0.015 ug/L as a 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentration, and 0.025 ug/L as a1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentration, not to be exceeded more than once every three years.

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected in Mustang Creek at the bifurcation structure near Ballico, at Monte Vista near Montpelier, at Newport Road near Ballico, and at Oakdale Road near Montpelier.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from November 2000 to March 2004 at variable intervals (hourly, daily, and monthly).

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. In accordance with section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy, data from major monitoring programs in California and Published USGS reports are considered of adequate quality.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73326, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23130

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Three water samples were collected from Mustang Creek from May through August 2006, representing two calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations and two 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations. One water sample was not used. Zero of the two calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.015 ug/L. Zero of the two 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.025 ug/L. One water sample had only estimated chlorpyrifos concnentrations and, therefore, the sample was not included in this analysis.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

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:

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazard Assessment Chlorpyrifos Criteria: 0.015 ug/L as a 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentration, and 0.025 ug/L as a 1-hour average concentration, not to be exceeded more than once every three years.

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Mustang Creek at East Avenue.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected monthly between May, June, and August 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	94763	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture
Expected Attainment Date:	2026
Implementation Action Other than TMDL:	This water body segment-pollutant combination is being addressed through Basin Plan requirements established under CRWQCB-CVR resolution R5-20140041, and implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural discharges. The sources of diazinon to this segment have been identified as offsite movement of diazinon from diazinon applications by the agricultural dischargers regulated by the CRWQCB-CVR WDRs. The Basin Plan identifies numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for diazinon as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of diazinon into surface water. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are achieved.
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This water body - pollutant combination is being considered for removal from the 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.11, 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 evidence indicates that diazinon concentrations are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but existing pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards because the impairment is being addressed by an enforceable regulatory program, other than a TMDL, that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 32 available calculated 4-day average diazinon concentrations exceeded the 4-day average diazinon criterion. This exceedance did not occur more than once every three years. 4. Six of 68 available 1-hour average diazinon concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average diazinon criterion. These exceedances occurred more than once every three years. 5. The sources of diazinon to this water body segment have been identified as offsite movement of diazinon from diazinon applications by the agricultural dischargers, who are regulated under enforceable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). 6. In 2016, the Board adopted Resolution R5-2014-0041 establishing Basin Plan amendments that primarily address the regulation of agricultural pesticide runoff and discharges of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in the Central Valley which are implemented through Board established Waste Discharge Requirements for agricultural dischargers. The amendments established numeric water quality objectives for diazinon and a control program to ensure that the objectives will be attained within a reasonable, specified time frame. The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for diazinon as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of diazinon into surface water. 8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 9. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information described in the lines of evidence associated with this decision, the Regional Water Board determined that this water body and pollutant combination is still impaired and that it should be listed as being addressed by another regulatory program that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame because an alternative State regulatory program is in place which can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame.

State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:	The Basin Plan and WDRs require growers to implement management practices through the development and implementation of water quality management plans to meet water quality objectives for diazinon as soon as possible but no longer than ten years from the date of approval of the Basin Plan Amendment. These management plans are required to be developed and implemented within one year of the Basin Plan Amendment approval. 7. Agricultural management practices to be implemented may include pest management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management practices and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of diazinon into surface water. 8. The Basin Plan and the Monitoring and Reporting programs in the Boards WDRs require monitoring to determine if adequate reductions are being attained. The Basin Plan and WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until the water quality objectives are attained. 9. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met.

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 94763, Diazinon	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23151

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifty-four water samples were collected from Mustang Creek from November 2002 through March 2004, representing eighteen calculated 4-day average diazinon concentrations and fifty-four 1-hour average diazinon concentrations. One of the eighteen calculated 4-day average diazinon concentrations exceeded the 4-day average diazinon criterion of 0.100 ug/L. Six of the fifty-four available 1-hour average diazinon concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average diazinon criterion of 0.160 ug/L.

Data Reference:

National Water Quality Assessment database, San Joaquin and Tulare Basins data

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

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:

California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment diazinon Criteria: 0.160 ug/L as a 1-hour average concentration, and 0.100 ug/L as a 4-day average concentration, not to be exceeded more than once every three years.

Guideline Reference:

Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Mustang Creek at: 1.1 miles south of Monte Vista Avenue near Montpelier; at Bifurcation Structure near Ballico; at Monte Vista Avenue near Montpelier; at Newport Road near Ballico; and Below Reservoir near Oakdale Road near Montpelier.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected in November and December 2002, July and December 2003, February and March 2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. In accordance with section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy, data from major monitoring programs in California and Published USGS reports are considered of adequate quality.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94763, Diazinon	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68068

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The freshwater chronic criterion value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).

Guideline Reference:

Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	100124	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Simazine
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture
Expected Attainment Date:	2018
Implementation Action Other than TMDL:	This listing is being addressed through the implementation of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory program (ILRP) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Growers within the Eastern San Joaquin River Watershed that are Members of the Third-Party Group (Order R5-2012-0016) and in Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Discharges from Irrigated Lands within the Central Valley Region for Dischargers not Participating in a Third-party Group (Order R5-2013-0100). The sources of simazine to this waterbody segment have been identified as offsite movement of simazine from simazine applications by the agricultural dischargers regulated by the CRWQCB-CVR WDRs. The WDRs include a time schedule, milestones and a monitoring and reporting program. The WDRs require growers to develop and implement water quality management plans iteratively to attain water quality objectives as soon as possible, but no later than ten years from the identification of water quality exceedances. The WDRs monitoring and reporting program requires growers to regularly monitor water bodies with management plans to assess progress at meeting standards and regularly report monitoring results to the Regional Board. A management plan for simazine in Mustang Creek was developed in 2008 and is being implemented and monitoring is ongoing. Agricultural management practices being used to reduce offsite movement of simazine into surface water include alternative weed management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management and water management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of simazine into surface water. The WDRs require management practices to be iteratively improved through updates of the management plans until water quality criteria are achieved. The simazine criteria are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of management practices within the required 10-year compliance time frame.
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This water body and pollutant combination is being reconsidered, during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle, for removal from the 303(d) list under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. The evidence indicated that simazine concentrations are not attaining water quality standards. During the 2014 Integrated Report cycle, this water body and pollutant combination was considered for removal from the 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.11, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE 95601 replaces LOE 23128 for this assessment. LOE 95601 re-assesses data previously evaluated in LOE 23128 according to a new evaluation guideline. The evidence indicates that simazine concentrations are not attaining the applicable water quality standards, but other pollution control requirements, under State authority, are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates this water segment-pollutant combination is being addressed by an enforceable regulatory program, other than a TMDL, that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards within a reasonable, specified time frame. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 5 of 28 samples exceeded the interim water quality criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. This listing is being addressed through the implementation of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory program (ILRP) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Growers within the Eastern San Joaquin River Watershed that are Members of the Third-Party Group (Order R5-2012-0016) and in WDRs General Order for Discharges from Irrigated Lands within the Central Valley Region for Dischargers not Participating in a Third-party Group (Order R5-2013-0100). The WDRs include a time schedule, milestones and a monitoring and reporting program. The WDRs require growers to develop and implement water quality management plans iteratively to attain water quality objectives as soon as possible, but no later than ten years from the identification of water quality exceedances. A management plan for simazine in Mustang Creek was developed in 2008 and is being implemented and monitoring is ongoing. Agricultural management practices being used to reduce offsite movement of simazine into surface water include alternative weed management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management and water management practices, pesticide application practices, vegetation management and water management practices, all of which are effective in reducing offsite movement of simazine into surface water. The simazine criteria are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of management practices within the required 10-year compliance time frame. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information described in the lines of evidence associated with this decision, the Regional Water Board determined that this water body and pollutant combination is still impaired and that it should be listed as being addressed by another regulatory program that is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame) because an alternative State regulatory program is in place which can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame.

State Board Staff 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 100124, Simazine	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68012

Pollutant:

Simazine

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for Simazine is 4 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 5/18/2006-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100124, Simazine	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

95601

Pollutant:

Simazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

52 water samples were collected from Mustang Creek from November 2002 to March 2004 that were averaged using a 7-day average per the evaluation guideline resulting in 8 averaged concentrations. Three out of 8 averaged concentrations exceeded the maximum concentration of 4 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Surface Water database (SWDB) for Central Valley waterbodies, 2000-2005

Correspondence between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality data for waterbodies in the Central Valley

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into this plan: Tables 64431-A (Inorganic Chemicals) and 64431-B (Fluoride) of Section 64431, Table 64444-A (Organic Chemicals) of Section 64444, and Tables 64449-A (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Consumer Acceptance Limits) and 64449-B (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges) of Section 64449. The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for simazine is 4 ug/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

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 Mustang Creek at four different sites: Bifurcation Structure near Ballico, Monte Vista, Newport Road near Ballico, and Oakdale Road.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. several samples per day, daily, and weekly) from November 2002 through March 2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. Minimum requirements for the CDPR Surface Water Database are: Name of the sampling agency or organization, Date that each sample was collected, Date of each sample analysis, County where samples were taken, Detailed sampling location information (including latitude and longitude or township/range/section if available), detailed map or description of each sampling site (i.e., address, cross roads, etc.), Name or description of water body sampled, Name of the active ingredient analyzed for; concentration detected (with unit of measurement), and limit of quantitation, Description of analytical QA/QC plan, or statement that no formal plan exists. Additional optional requirements are included on DPR's webpage at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/caps/req.htm

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100124, Simazine	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23128

Pollutant:

Simazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

52 water samples were collected from Mustang Creek from November 2002 through February 2004, representing 52 concentrations.31 of 52 concentrations exceeded the MCL for drinking water standard (4 ug/L);

Data Reference:

Surface Water database (SWDB) for Central Valley waterbodies, 2000-2005

Correspondence between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality data for waterbodies in the Central Valley

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into this plan: Tables 64431-A (Inorganic Chemicals) and 64431-B (Fluoride) of Section 64431, Table 64444-A (Organic Chemicals) of Section 64444, and Tables 64449-A (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Consumer Acceptance Limits) and 64449-B (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges) of Section 64449.

The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for simazine is 4 ug/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

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Mustang Creek at four different sites: Bifurcation Structure near Ballico, Monte Vista, Newport Road near Ballico, and Oakdale Road.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. several samples per day, daily, and weekly) from November 2002 through February 2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100124, Simazine	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68011

Pollutant:

Simazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Simazine, 90 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 5/18/2006-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	91096	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Aldicarb
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 91096, Aldicarb	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68028

Pollutant:

Aldicarb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Aldicarb.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for aldicarb, 6.33 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 63.3 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	94783	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Ammonia as N, Total
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 one 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 eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 94783, Ammonia as N, Total	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

79018

Pollutant:

Ammonia as N, Total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Eight water samples collected from Mud Slough, North (upstream of San Luis Drain) East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition were analyzed for ammonia, pH and temperature. None of the eight samples exceeded the calculated ammonia CMC values.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

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.

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:

Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in South San Joaquin Irrigation District, 2004-2008.

Spatial Representation:

The eight water samples were collected from Mustang Creek (Merced County) at one monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Eight water samples were collected from Mustang Creek (Merced County) between 2/7/2009 and 4/20/2010

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	67657	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives. 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 three samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives, 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 Staff 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 67657, Arsenic	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68030

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67657, Arsenic	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68029

Pollutant:

Arsenic

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for arsenic is 0.010 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67658	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Atrazine
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 3.1a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives. 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 14 samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives, 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 Staff 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 67658, Atrazine	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68036

Pollutant:

Atrazine

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for atrazine is 1 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67658, Atrazine	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68037

Pollutant:

Atrazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Atrazine, 43 ug/L, is a an EC50 for Lemna gibba (duckweed); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

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:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	79642	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)
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 one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 79642, Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68038

Pollutant:

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos methyl. Fourteen samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The National Recommended Water Quality criterion for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67614	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Bifenthrin
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67614, Bifenthrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68039

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six samples were collected and analyzed for Bifenthrin. The reporting level for all 6 samples is greater than the evaluation guideline value. Therefore, none of the samples were evaluated for exceedances; i.e., 0 samples, 0 exceedances.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Bifenthrin, 0.0006 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	79643	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Boron
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 79643, Boron	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

79640

Pollutant:

Boron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Boron.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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:

Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the limits presented in the Water Quality Goals tables, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The criteria for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L).

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985)

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	67606	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives. 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 three samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives, 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 Staff 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 67606, Cadmium	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68046

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The cadmium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67606, Cadmium	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68040

Pollutant:

Cadmium

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for cadmium is 5 ug/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:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67659	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Carbaryl
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67659, Carbaryl	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68047

Pollutant:

Carbaryl

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The USEPA recommended water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93039	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Carbofuran
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, one 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 14 water samples exceed the MUN Criteria/Objective, and zero of the 14 water samples exceed the WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 water samples exceed the MUN Criterion/Objective, and zero of the 14 water samples exceed the WARM 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 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 Staff 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 93039, Carbofuran	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68049

Pollutant:

Carbofuran

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for Carbofuran is 18 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93039, Carbofuran	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68048

Pollutant:

Carbofuran

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present 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 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

The freshwater criterion maximum concentration for carbofuran is 0.5 µg/L (DFG 92-3, 1992).

Guideline Reference:

Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Carbofuran to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67654	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Copper
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 3.1a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight water samples exceed either the MUN water quality objective or the calculated WARM water evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight water samples exceed either the MUN objective or the WARM 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 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 Staff 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 67654, Copper	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68051

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67654, Copper	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68050

Pollutant:

Copper

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California secondary maximum contaminant level for copper is 1.0 mg/L.

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 Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93045	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Cyanazine
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 93045, Cyanazine	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68057

Pollutant:

Cyanazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) for cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67664	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Cyfluthrin
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67664, Cyfluthrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68058

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Six samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyfluthrin, 0.00005 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin, March 2010).

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67660	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Cyhalothrin, Lambda
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67660, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68059

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda. Six samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyhalothrin, 0.0005 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67661	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Cypermethrin
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67661, Cypermethrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68060

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Six samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cypermethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, or the 1-hour average concentration, 0.001 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93098	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
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 one line(s) of evidence are 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 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 93098, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

78842

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

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:

The DDD method detection limit for all nine analytical sample results collected from Mustang Creek (Merced County) is greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007) Pesticides: Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer.- California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA, 2000), for Inland Surface Waters based on drinking water and aquatic organism consumption. The criteria are based on human health protection for carcinogenicity at 1-in-a-million risk level (30-day average) with a limit of 0.00083 ug/L for DDD

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Nine water samples were collected from one monitoring site on Mustang Creek (Merced County) [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA] and they were analyzed for DDD(p,p').

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected intermittently between 2/12/2007 and 12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.


DECISION ID	67662	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are 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 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 67662, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

78894

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

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:

The DDE method detection limit for all nine analytical sample results collected from Mustang Creek (Merced County) is greater than the criterion; therefore, the data could not be assessed with the accuracy required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, 2005-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Nine water samples were collected from one monitoring site on Mustang Creek (Merced County) [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA] and they were analyzed for DDE(p,p').

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected intermittently between 2/12/2007 and 12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition.


DECISION ID	93099	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water 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. 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 each of the MUN and WARM water Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 93099, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68067

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The criterion for total DDT to protect human health from consumption of water and organisms is 0.00059 ug/L (California Toxics Rule).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93099, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68066

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for DDT(p,p). Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93101	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Dicofol
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the nine samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of nine samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 93101, Dicofol	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68069

Pollutant:

Dicofol

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Dicofol.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Dicofol, 5.9 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93158	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed the MUN, and zero of nine samples exceed the WARM water 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero water samples exceed the MUN objective, and zero of nine water samples exceed the WARM water objective, 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 Staff 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 93158, Dieldrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68076

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93158, Dieldrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68070

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Nine samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The criterion for Dieldrin to protect human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67663	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Dimethoate
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67663, Dimethoate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68077

Pollutant:

Dimethoate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for dimethoate, 4.3 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 43 ug/L) for Pteronarcys californica (Stonefly); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	91625	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Disulfoton
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 91625, Disulfoton	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68078

Pollutant:

Disulfoton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Disulfoton.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality criterion for disulfoton in freshwater (0.05 ug/L) is an aquatic life maximum (instantaneous) level.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	86953	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Diuron
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. None of 14 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use. 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. None of 14 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, 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 sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Staff 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 86953, Diuron	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

79642

Pollutant:

Diuron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Diuron.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Diuron, 1.3 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	91626	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the nine water samples exceed either the MUN or WARM objectives. 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 nine samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 91626, Endrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68080

Pollutant:

Endrin

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endrin criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91626, Endrin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68081

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67655	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67655, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68087

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for fenvalerate, 0.113 ug/L, is one-tenth the LC50 (1.13 ug/L) for Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67656	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Glyphosate
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 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the nine samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, zero of the nine samples exceed the WARM water evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of nine samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, zero of nine samples exceed the WARM water 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 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 Staff 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 67656, Glyphosate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68089

Pollutant:

Glyphosate

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for Glyphosate is 700 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67656, Glyphosate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68088

Pollutant:

Glyphosate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for glyphosate, 5,500 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 55,000 ug/L) for Chironimus plumosus (Midge). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67670	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Lead
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the calculated WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of three samples exceeded Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 67670, Lead	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68090

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93159	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Linuron
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 93159, Linuron	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68096

Pollutant:

Linuron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Linuron.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Linuro, 13.7 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67672	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Malathion
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67672, Malathion	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68097

Pollutant:

Malathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. Fourteen samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion, 0.028 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93160	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Methidathion
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 93160, Methidathion	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68098

Pollutant:

Methidathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Methidathion, 0.86 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphina magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93215	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Methiocarb
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 93215, Methiocarb	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68099

Pollutant:

Methiocarb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Methiocarb.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for methiocarb, 43.6 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 436 ug/L) for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67666	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Methomyl
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67666, Methomyl	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67969

Pollutant:

Methomyl

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl in the San Joaquin River system is 0.5 ug/L (4-day average). (CDFG, 1996)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93216	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Methoxychlor
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the nine water samples exceed either the MUN objective or the WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the nine samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 93216, Methoxychlor	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67970

Pollutant:

Methoxychlor

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for Methoxychlor, 30 ug/L, is incorporated by reference into the (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93216, Methoxychlor	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67971

Pollutant:

Methoxychlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

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:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93217	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Methyl Parathion
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 one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 93217, Methyl Parathion	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67972

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. Fourteen samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	91997	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Molinate
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six water samples exceed either the MUN objective or the WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceed the MUN water Criteria/Objective, zero of six samples exceed the WARM water 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 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 Staff 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 91997, Molinate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67987

Pollutant:

Molinate

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for Molinate is 20 ug/L .

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91997, Molinate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67973

Pollutant:

Molinate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Molinate, 600 ug/L, the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67671	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Nickel
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 3.1a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight water samples exceed either the MUN objective or WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives 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 Staff 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 67671, Nickel	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67988

Pollutant:

Nickel

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67671, Nickel	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67989

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67668	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, Nitrate
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single water sample does not exceed the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use. 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 water sample does not exceed the water quality objective, 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 Staff 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 67668, Nitrogen, Nitrate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67991

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, Nitrate

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrate (NO3 as N) is 10.0 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/19/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93218	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, Nitrite
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single water sample does not exceed the water quality objective for MUN. 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 water sample does not exceed the water quality objective for MUN, 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 Staff 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 93218, Nitrogen, Nitrite	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67992

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, Nitrite

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrite (as N) is 1 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/19/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	92359	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Oxamyl (Vydate)
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 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. 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 14 samples exceeded Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 92359, Oxamyl (Vydate)	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

79643

Pollutant:

Oxamyl (Vydate)

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:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Oxamyl.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Oxamyl incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins is 50 ug/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins).

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:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	67611	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Paraquat
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the nine samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of nine samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67611, Paraquat	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68000

Pollutant:

Paraquat

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Paraquat.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The evaluation guideline for Oryzalin, 1,200 ug/L, is an EC50 for Daphnia sp. (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-12/15/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67685	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Permethrin, total
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are 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 Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67685, Permethrin, total	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68001

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Six samples were 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:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Permethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	92361	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Phorate
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 92361, Phorate	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68002

Pollutant:

Phorate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for phorate, 0.2 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 2.0 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	92362	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Phosmet
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 92362, Phosmet	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68003

Pollutant:

Phosmet

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Phosmet, 5.6 ug/L, is the EC50 for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67687	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight water samples exceed either the MUN objective or the WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight water samples exceed either the MUN objective or the WARM 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 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 Staff 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 67687, Selenium	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68010

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67687, Selenium	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68009

Pollutant:

Selenium

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for selenium is 0.05 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93102	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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. Three of the 21 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. 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 21 samples exceeded Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 93102, Specific Conductivity	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68079

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us).

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93103	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

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 20 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 20 samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 93103, Temperature, water	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68013

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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 (Sacramento-San Juoaquin River Basin Plans).

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:

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 Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	93105	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Thiobencarb/Bolero
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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six water samples exceed either the MUN objective or the WARM 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. 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 six water samples exceed either the MUN evaluation guideline or the WARM water water quality objective, 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 Staff 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 93105, Thiobencarb/Bolero	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68020

Pollutant:

Thiobencarb/Bolero

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of Thiobencarb in excess of 1.0 µg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

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:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93105, Thiobencarb/Bolero	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68019

Pollutant:

Thiobencarb/Bolero

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb, 1.4 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-2/26/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67688	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Trifluralin
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 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight samples exceeded 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 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 Staff 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 67688, Trifluralin	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68022

Pollutant:

Trifluralin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Trifluralin.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin, 1.58 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67675	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Zinc
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 3.1a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight water samples exceed either the MUN or the WARM water quality 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. 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 eight samples exceed each of the MUN and WARM water quality objectives 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 Staff 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 67675, Zinc	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68031

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67675, Zinc	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68023

Pollutant:

Zinc

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California secondary maximum contaminant level for zinc is 5.0 mg/L.

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 Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	92360	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	pH
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 18 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. 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 18 samples exceeded Criteria/Objective 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 Staff 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 92360, pH	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

79644

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:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

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:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-7/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	95848	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
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:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2023
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of 17 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the Water Contact Recreation beneficial use. 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.Ten of 17 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the Water Contact Recreation beneficial use, and this sample size is sufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. 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 Staff 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 95848, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23147

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:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition collected 3 samples from May 2006 to August 2006. Three out of 3 samples exceeded the evaluation objective.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-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. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.

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

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986).

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Mustang Creek at East Avenue.

Temporal Representation:

Sampling occurred from May 2006 to August 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95848, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68086

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 7 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins)

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:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	67673	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)
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:	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 3.1 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. Two of the eight samples exceed the water quality objective. 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. Two of eight samples exceed the water quality objectives and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 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 Staff 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 67673, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67990

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

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:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California primary maximum contaminant level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) is 10.0 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/7/2009-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	74998	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
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:	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 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twelve of 27 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the Cold Freshwater Habitat or the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Twelve of 27 water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for the Cold Freshwater Habitat or the Warm Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses and this exceeds 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 being exceeded.

State Board Staff 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 74998, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23146

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Five samples were taken from Mustang Creek between 2002 and 2004. One of the five samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water.

Data Reference:

National Water Quality Assessment database, San Joaquin and Tulare Basins data

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/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 from Mustang Creek 1.1 miles South of Monte Vista Avenue and at the bifurcation structure near Ballico in Merced County.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between December 2002 and February 2004. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. In accordance with section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy, data from major monitoring programs in California and Published USGS reports are considered of adequate quality.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 9, Handbooks for Water-Resources Investigations

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74998, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

67993

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data to determine beneficial use support: 10 of 18 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

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:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Mustang Creek @ East Ave-535XMCAEA].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected monthly between 2/12/2007 and 4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74998, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23132

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four samples were taken from Mustang Creek during 2006. One of the four samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan the (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/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 from Mustang Creek at East Avenue in Merced County.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between May and August 2006. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	93104	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Total Dissolved Solids
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:	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. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of the 14 samples exceed the water quality objective. 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 14 samples exceed the water quality objectives and this exceeds 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 Staff 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 93104, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

79641

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Mustang Creek (Merced County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Dissolved Solids.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The secondary MCL for Total Dissolved Solids is 500 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:

Data for this line of evidence for Mustang Creek (Merced County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mustang Creek @ East Ave - 535XMCAEA]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/12/2007-4/20/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	94813	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

Pollutant:	Toxicity
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:	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 3.1 and 3.6 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. Three of nineteen water samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia, survival of Pimephales promelas, and total cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum. One of six sediment samples tested with Hyalella azteca exhibited significant toxicity. 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. Three of nineteen water samples exhibited significant toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 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 Staff 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 94813, Toxicity	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23148

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Only one sample tested with Hyalella azteca survival.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests.

Guideline Reference:

Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064

Spatial Representation:

Sample was collected from Mustang Creek at East Avenue.

Temporal Representation:

Sample was collected on August 10, 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Fair. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94813, Toxicity	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

59148

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Six samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. One of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan.

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:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S equals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at Mustang Creek at East Ave.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from August 2006 to March 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data was collected under the Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94813, Toxicity	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23129

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 3 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.

Guideline Reference:

Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012

Spatial Representation:

Sample was collected from Mustang Creek at East Avenue.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from May 2006 to August 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94813, Toxicity	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

68021

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Nineteen samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Three of the samples exhibited significant toxicity(Ceriodaphnia dubia, 1/24/08, 1/30/08, and Selenastrum capricornutum, 2/26/08). The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia, survival of Pimephales promelas, and total cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in East San Joaquin, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. This data set reports a simple pass/fail (Yes/NO) code to report toxicity that is equivalent to the SWAMP SL code.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at Mustang Creek at East Ave.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from May 2006 to April 2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data was collected under the Quality Assurance Project Plan For Monitoring By The East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94813, Toxicity	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23150

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 2 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

Sample was collected from Mustang Creek at East Avenue.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from May 2006 to August 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94813, Toxicity	Region 5
Mustang Creek (Merced County)

LOE ID:

23149

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 3 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-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:

Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Sample was collected from Mustang Creek at East Avenue.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from May 2006 to August 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):