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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: Merced River, Upper
Water Body ID: CAR5373006120020716114140
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
71244
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
Pollutant: Indicator Bacteria
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 27 samples exceed the Non-Contact Recreation evaluation guideline and zero of 30 samples exceed the Water Contact Recreation 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 27 samples exceed the Non-Contact Recreation evaluation guideline and zero of 30 samples exceed the Water Contact Recreation evaluation guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71244, Indicator Bacteria
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 6995
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Non-Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 27
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: zero of the 27 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for E.Coli Bacteria.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 409 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)
Guideline Reference: Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Merced River at Bagby Recreation Area. Samples were collected at Merced River at Briceburg. Samples were collected at Merced River at Merced Falls.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Jan 22 2003 to Jan 7 2004
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71244, Indicator Bacteria
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 6903
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 27
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: zero of the 27 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for E.Coli Bacteria.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline: E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 235 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)
Guideline Reference: Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Merced River at Bagby Recreation Area. Samples were collected at Merced River at Briceburg. Samples were collected at Merced River at Merced Falls.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Jan 22 2003 to Jan 7 2004
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71244, Indicator Bacteria
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 67095
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: SWAMP data indicates that 0 of 3 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Escherichia coli.
Data Reference: RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, 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 U.S. EPA recommended objective for a single-sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated-beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL.
Guideline Reference: 40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule [Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220]
 
Spatial Representation: Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Pattys Hole, Merced River at El Portal - 537MAR900]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
 
 
DECISION ID
69286
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
Pollutant: Invasive Species
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: Pollution
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.10 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 studies, two in 1969-1971 and one in 1986 were used for this assessment, which showed an overall increase of native and non-native species over time.

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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. Three studies were conducted, two in 1969-1971 and one in 1986.
2. Baseline data was taken from the 1969-1971 studies. All three studies sampled the same geographic area, with similar sampling sizes.
3. Rank abundance, Pearson product moment correlations, and principal components analysis were the statistical analyses employed during these studies.
4. The comparison showed a net increase of native and non-native species observed at all sampling sites. The data was based on the percentage of sites the species were collected at for each study.
5. Some native species were collected at more sites in 1986 than in 1969-71. Some non-native species were collected at more sites than in 1969-71. Eight native species increased in the watersheds they were observed from 1969-71 to 1986, while 5 native species decreased. Nine non-native species increased over time from 1969-71 to 1986, while 7 non-native species decreased.
6. It cannot be determined if the trend in water quality is expected to meet water standards by the next listing cycle.
7. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69286, Invasive Species
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 2765
 
Pollutant: Invasive Species
LOE Subgroup: Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Fish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Two previous studies (conducted in 1969-71) (Moyle and Nichols, 1973; Moyle and Nichols, 1974) were used as baseline comparisons to a study conducted in 1986 (Brown and Moyle, 1993). Species percent collection data were the same for each baseline study at the sampling sites. The baseline studies and this study sampled the same geographic area, with similar sampling sizes. The baseline data was compared to the data collected in 1986. The comparison showed an overall net increase of native species observed at all sampling sites, as well as a net increase in non-native species. The data was based on the percentage of sites the species were collected at for each study. Overall, some native species were collected at more sites in 1986 (an increase in percent) than in the 1969-71 studies (Brown and Moyle, 1993). Some non-native species were collected at more sites (an increase in percent) than in the 1969-71 studies. Eight native species increased in the watersheds they were observed (collected at more sites over time) from 1969-71 to 1986, while 5 native species decreased (collected at less sites over time). Nine non-native species increased over time (collected at more sites over time) from 1969-71 to 1986, while 7 non-native species decreased (collected at less sites over time).
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
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. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board. Taken from Region 5 Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno, San Joaquin, Kings, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers, between 90 and 1100 meters elevation.
Temporal Representation: Baseline studies: 37 samples taken during the summer and autumn of 1969, 1970 and 1971 and 130 samples were taken from 7/27-9/4/1970. Another survey was conducted from Sept. 1985 to Sept. 1986 at 186 sites. Only 156 sites were used from this study for statistical analyses, (Brown and Moyle, 1993).
Environmental Conditions: Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, or hydromodification.
QAPP Information: Peer Reviewed Journal Articles.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
70694
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
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: The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.

"This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 27 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.

The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.

After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70694, Oxygen, Dissolved
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 6366
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 27
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: 0 of the 27 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Dissolved Oxygen.
Data Reference: San Joaquin River SWAMP Monitoring Data - Drainage Basin Inflows
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Basin Plan Objective sets the minimum Dissolved Oxygen content at 7 mg/L
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at Merced River at Bagby Recreation Area. Samples were collected at Merced River at Briceburg. Samples were collected at Merced River at Merced Falls.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected from Jan 22 2003 to Jan 7 2004
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
90722
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
Pollutant: Specific Conductivity
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of three samples exceed the California Secondary MCL 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. Zero of three samples exceed the California Secondary MCL 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 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2.
4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90722, Specific Conductivity
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 67094
 
Pollutant: Specific Conductivity
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Municipal & Domestic Supply
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: SWAMP data indicates that 0 of 3 sample results exceed the criterion for electrical conductivity.
Data Reference: RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), an upper level (1,600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2,200 uS/cm). The recommended level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is protective of all drinking water uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the 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 [ Pattys Hole, Merced River at El Portal - 537MAR900]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The SWAMP QAMP (2002) was used for data before Septemper 1, 2008 and SWAMP QAPP (2008) was thereafter.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
QAPP Information Reference(s): Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
 
 
DECISION ID
90721
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
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. Two of three samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD.

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

1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two of three samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2.
4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90721, Temperature, water
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 67109
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 2
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: SWAMP data indicates that two of 3 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Water Temperature.
Data Reference: RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the 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 was collected at one monitoring site [ Pattys Hole, Merced River at El Portal - 537MAR900]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The SWAMP QAMP (2002) was used for data before Septemper 1, 2008 and SWAMP QAPP (2008) was thereafter.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
QAPP Information Reference(s): Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
 
 
DECISION ID
74040
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
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: The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.

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.

Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of 30 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the water quality objective for REC-1.

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 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. None of 30 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the water quality objective for MUN, and 0 of 3 samples exceed the water quality objective for REC-1 and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.

After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:
 
State Board Decision Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74040, pH
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 67097
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Municipal & Domestic Supply
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: SWAMP data indicates that 0 of 3 sample results exceed the criterion for pH.
Data Reference: RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (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 [ Pattys Hole, Merced River at El Portal - 537MAR900]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74040, pH
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 67108
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: SWAMP data indicates that 0 of 3 sample results exceed the criterion for pH.
Data Reference: RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (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 [ Pattys Hole, Merced River at El Portal - 537MAR900]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74040, pH
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 22228
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 27
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program collected 27 samples from January 2003 to January 2004. None of the 27 samples were outside the acceptable range.
Data Reference: Monitoring Data from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), San Joaquin River Basin - 2007 Data Review
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.5, or changed at any time more than 0.5 units from normal ambient pH.
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 three locations: Merced River at Bagby, Merced River at Briceburg, and Merced River at Merced Falls.
Temporal Representation: Sampling occurred from January 2003 to January 2004.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74040, pH
Region 5     
Merced River, Upper
 
LOE ID: 67096
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: SWAMP data indicates that 0 of 3 sample results exceed the criterion for pH.
Data Reference: RWB5 Safe to Swim FY0708 FY0809
 
SWAMP Data: SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (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 [ Pattys Hole, Merced River at El Portal - 537MAR900]
Temporal Representation: Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.
Environmental Conditions: Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.
QAPP Information: The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.
QAPP Information Reference(s): Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan