| Water Body Name: | Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR3052002120080603163208 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
86186 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data were assessed.
The pollutant name was changed to ¿Ammonia¿ in the 2014 assessment cycle. This decision replaces the two previously approved decisions, one for each of the pollutants unionized ammonia and total ammonia. This decision contains all of the LOEs from those decisions in addition to new LOEs. 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. Four lines of evidence (LOEs) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two LOEs summarize unionized ammonia data in which zero of the 17 samples exceed the water quality objective for unionized ammonia set to protect aquatic life. Two LOEs summarize total ammonia data and zero of the 804 samples exceed the EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia in drinking water. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 17 samples exceed the water quality objective for unionized ammonia and zero of the 804 samples exceed the EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia in drinking water. These do not exceed 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9377 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Health Advisory 2006 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories (EPA 822-R-06-013, 2006). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. This Advisory Level is defined as "the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to ten days of exposure." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9346 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 (General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries) states that the discharge of wastes shall not cause concentrations of unionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters (page III-4) . | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9347 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 (General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries) states that the discharge of wastes shall not cause concentrations of unionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters (page III-4) . | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17776 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 787 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 787 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia As N, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Health Advisory 2006 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories (EPA 822-R-06-013, 2006). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. This Advisory Level is defined as "the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to ten days of exposure." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-3/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72573 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| 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 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 the 10 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply 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 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 the 10 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9401 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Boron, dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. In addition, waters used for irrigation and livestock watering shall not exceed concentrations for those chemicals listed in Table 3.4 (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). Table 3-4 (page III-9) lists the maximum concentration for boron for irrigation supply is 0.75 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/25/2005-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
71959 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
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. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 10 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply 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 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 the 10 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply 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 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9402 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Chloride. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when chloride exceeds 106 mg/L in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/25/2005-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73071 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a |
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (North Carolina Administrative code, Title 15A) and the General Water Quality Objective set to protect aquatic life beneficial uses. 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 the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (North Carolina Administrative code, Title 15A) and the General Water Quality Objective set to protect aquatic life beneficial uses. The 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9400 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorophyll a. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (general objective for biostimulatory substances, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality standards table | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | North Carolina Administrative code (NCAC), Title 15A - Environmental and Natural Resources, Subchapter 2B-Surface water and wetland standards, Rule 0211-Fresh surface water quality standards for class C waters (Class C is defined as freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife). Section 3(a) of Rule 0211 applies to all fresh surface waters and states that chlorophyll a is not to exceed 40 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/19/1998-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9399 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorophyll a. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (general objective for biostimulatory substances, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality standards table | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | North Carolina Administrative code (NCAC), Title 15A - Environmental and Natural Resources, Subchapter 2B-Surface water and wetland standards, Rule 0211-Fresh surface water quality standards for class C waters (Class C is defined as freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife). Section 3(a) of Rule 0211 applies to all fresh surface waters and states that chlorophyll a is not to exceed 40 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/19/1998-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
83364 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data are assessed. This decision has not changed from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) list. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One water sample exceeded the Evaluation Guideline (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. The other water sample will not be used in this decision because the laboratory¿s method detection limit and reporting limits were greater than the evaluation guideline and the result was non-detect. Therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. The single sediment sample (pore water) did not exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses, however, this sample will also not be used in this decision because the laboratory¿s method detection limit and reporting limits were greater than the evaluation guideline and the result was non-detect. Therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Additionally, there is no chlorpyrifos evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). LOEs summarizing pore water results will not be the sole basis for any decision. 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 supported using table 3.1. 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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sample exceeded the Evaluation Guideline (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses and this does not exceed 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16283 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16190 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/3/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16282 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16191 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/3/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
76450 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| 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: | No new data are assessed. This decision has not changed from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment. The pollutant concentration in sediment must be associated with toxicity to result in addition of the pollutant to the Section 303(d) list. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of two samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Finlayson, 2004) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. The single sediment sample (pore water) did not exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Finlayson, 2004) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. There is no diazinon evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). LOEs summarizing pore water results will not be the sole basis for any decision. 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 supported using table 3.1. 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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Finlayson, 2004) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses and this does not exceed 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16855 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/3/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16706 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16705 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16854 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/3/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
82326 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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. None of the 10 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, 1986) as it applies to the Water Contact Recreation beneficial use or the water quality objective for Non-Contact Recreation. 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 the 10 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, 1986) as it applies to the Water Contact Recreation beneficial use or the water quality objective for Non-Contact Recreation, 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11073 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 2000/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 4000/100 ml. E. coli is a fecal coliform. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/25/2005-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11072 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Single sample maximum allowable density for E. coli in freshwater is 235 MPN/100mL (as stated in Table 4, page 15) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/25/2005-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72169 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform |
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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 the 17 samples exceed the Water Contact Recreation water quality objective and none of the 17 samples exceed the Non-contact Recreation 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 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. Three of the 17 samples exceed the Water Contact Recreation water quality objective and none of the 17 samples exceed the Non-Contact Recreation 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 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11051 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 2000/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 4000/100 ml. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11035 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN/100 ml. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
82376 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | 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: | No new data were assessed.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty-two of the 825 samples exceed the Municipal & Domestic Supply water quality objective and sixteen of the 825 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply 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 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. Twenty-two of the 825 samples exceed the Municipal & Domestic Supply water quality objective and sixteen of the 825 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply water quality objective. Neither exceed 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9349 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin Objective for municipal and domestic supply uses of inland surface waters (Section II.A.2) states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Article 4, Chapter 15, Section 64435, Tables 2 and 3 as listed in Table 3-2. The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 3-2 (inorganic and fluoride concentrations not to be exceeded in domestic or municipal supply) for nitrate is 10.0 mg/L (NO3 as N). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13712 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin Objective for municipal and domestic supply uses of inland surface waters (Section II.A.2) states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Article 4, Chapter 15, Section 64435, Tables 2 and 3 as listed in Table 3-2. The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 3-2 (inorganic and fluoride concentrations not to be exceeded in domestic or municipal supply) for nitrate is 10.0 mg/L (NO3 as N). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13697 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when nitrate exceeds 30 mg/L NO3 as N in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17925 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 790 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 22 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 22 of 790 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin Objective for municipal and domestic supply uses of inland surface waters (Section II.A.2) states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Article 4, Chapter 15, Section 64435, Tables 2 and 3 as listed in Table 3-2. The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 3-2 (inorganic and fluoride concentrations not to be exceeded in domestic or municipal supply) for nitrate is 10.0 mg/L (NO3 as N). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-3/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17924 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 790 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 16 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 16 of 790 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when nitrate exceeds 30 mg/L NO3 as N in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-3/20/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9348 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when nitrate exceeds 30 mg/L NO3 as N in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72113 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Sodium |
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
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. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 10 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply 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 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 the 10 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply 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 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9403 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Sodium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when sodium exceeds 69 mg/L in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/25/2005-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72050 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| 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: | No new data are assessed.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Note that the pollutant name for the older LOEs and decisions is electrical conductivity. This was an error and the pollutant name should have always been specific conductivity. Zero of the 644 samples exceed the water quality objective for agricultural uses. 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 644 samples exceed the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17852 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 315 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 315 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(uS). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when conductivity exceeds 3.0 mS/cm in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 9 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/31/2004-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13830 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when conductivity exceeds 3.0 mS/cm in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17509 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 294 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 294 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when conductivity exceeds 3.0 mS/cm in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 5 monitoring sites [ UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-10/30/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11052 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when conductivity exceeds 3.0 mS/cm in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
82426 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
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 the 554 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Moyle 1976) applied to protect the Cold 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 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 the 554 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Moyle 1976) applied to protect the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 14095 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (General Objective in Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11966 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (General Objective in Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17635 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 518 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 12 of 518 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (General Objective in Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90864 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
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. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 and time at the same location. Two LOEs summarize sediment samples. One sediment sample is summarized in LOEs using the test organism as the pollutant (i.e. invertebrate toxicity). The single sediment sample did not result in a significant toxic effect to one or more test organisms. Six LOEs summarize water samples. Two water samples are summarized in LOEs using each of the test organisms as the pollutant name (i.e. plant toxicity, invertebrate toxicity or vertebrate toxicity). Zero of the two water samples resulted in a significant toxic effect to one or more test organisms. The 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 supported and a minimum of two exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.1. Therefore, the use support rating is set to 'insufficient information'. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sediment sample and neither of the two water samples resulted in a significant toxic effect to one or more test organisms and therefore 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24668 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Hyalella azteca Survival (%) 10 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/3/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24669 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Hyalella azteca Survival (%) 10 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/3/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24664 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24665 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24674 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Plant Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Selenastrum capricornutum Growth (Cell Density) 4 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction in cell count of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and cell count <80% of control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24675 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Plant Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Selenastrum capricornutum Growth (Cell Density) 4 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction in cell count of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and cell count <80% of control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24672 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Vertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Pimephales promelas Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 24673 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Vertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Pimephales promelas Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 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) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/5/2006-5/17/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
82428 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| 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: | No new data were assessed.
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. Eighteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seventy-four of 634 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply water quality objective, 57 of 634 samples exceed the Cold and Warm Freshwater Habitat water quality objective and 90 of 634 samples exceed the numeric objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply, Non-Contact Recreation and Water Contact Recreation. 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. Seventy-four of 634 samples exceed the Agricultural Supply water quality objective, 57 of 634 samples exceed the Cold and Warm Freshwater Habitat water quality objective and 90 of 634 samples exceed the numeric objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply, Non-Contact Recreation and Water Contact Recreation. These do 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17926 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 598 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 56 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 56 of 598 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11054 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13834 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11053 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when pH is greater than 8.4 or less than 6.5 in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17913 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 598 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 72 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 72 of 598 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when pH is greater than 8.4 or less than 6.5 in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11055 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Section II.A.2. Municipal and Domestic Supply Objectives, Section II.A.2.a states the following: The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17927 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 598 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 85 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 85 of 598 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Section II.A.2. Municipal and Domestic Supply Objectives, Section II.A.2.a states the following: The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13835 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Section II.A.2. Municipal and Domestic Supply Objectives, Section II.A.2.a states the following: The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13837 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11070 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17929 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 598 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 85 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 85 of 598 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17930 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 598 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 56 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 56 of 598 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11071 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13838 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13836 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11069 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17928 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 598 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 85 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 85 of 598 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 10 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn, at 101] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13833 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts which adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse effect shall be as derived from the University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 (Central Coast Waterboard Basin Plan, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland and Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). In Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan (page III-8), water quality guidelines state that severe problems may occur when pH is greater than 8.4 or less than 6.5 in irrigation supply water. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
85961 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| 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: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2018 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data were assessed.
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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Thirty-three of the 87 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Cold Freshwater Habitats and therefore this use is not supported. Six of the 87 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Warm Freshwater Habitats and this use is fully supported. The Basin Plan general water quality objective for oxygen saturation states that the median value shall not fall below 85% saturation. However, the oxygen saturation objective is only applied ¿for waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use¿¿ and this water body is designated for both Cold and Warm Freshwater Habitats. Therefore, the use support rating for oxygen saturation is set at Insufficient Information. 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. Thirty-three of the 87 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Cold Freshwater Habitats 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17780 | ||||
| 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: | 68 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 68 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. A total of 281 measurements were recorded, and of those 6 were below 5.0 mg/L. However multiple measurements were taken on a given day and for those, the lowest value was used for each day. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 5 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-101 - Uvas Creek at Highway 101. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12003 | ||||
| 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: | 19 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16911 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 68 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 33 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 33 of 68 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. A total of 281 measurements were recorded, and of those 78 were below 7.0 mg/L. However multiple measurements were taken on a given day and for those, the lowest value was used for each day. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Cold Water Habitat Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 5 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-101 - Uvas Creek at Highway 101. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/1/2002-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12002 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Cold Water Habitat Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12005 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Saturation. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: Median values should not fall below 85% saturation as a result of controllable water quality conditions. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12004 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Saturation. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: Median values should not fall below 85% saturation as a result of controllable water quality conditions. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73072 |
Region 3 |
Uvas Creek (below Uvas Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2023 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data were assessed.
No new data were assessed. 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Eighty-one of the 181 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for Cold Freshwater Habitat (Sigler et al. 1984) and 81 of the 181 samples exceed the Warm Freshwater Habitat evaluation guideline (Shoup, D.E. and Wahl D.H., 2009), both used to interpret the water quality objective for turbidity. 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. Eighty-one of the 181 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for Cold Freshwater Habitat and 81 of the 181 samples exceed the Warm Freshwater Habitat evaluation guideline 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17450 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 151 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 66 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 66 of 151 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 9 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 9/28/2005-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11965 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13683 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 11964 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 305UVA-Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Avenue] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/18/1997-3/15/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 17449 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 151 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 66 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Monterey Area Research Consortium (R3_MARC) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 66 of 151 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file A | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: Marc Los Huertos Water Quality Data, file B | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 9 monitoring sites [ UV-THO - Uvas Creek at Thomas Rd., UV-URB - Uvas Creek below Uvas Reservoir, UV-152 - Uvas Creek at Highway 152, UV-BLO - Uvas Creek at Bloomfield Av. Bridge, UV-H25 - Uvas Creek at Highway 25, CA-H25- Uvas Creek at Highway 25, Bonfante Garden Outlet, UV-UCP - Uvas Creek at Canyon County Park, Above Barn] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 9/28/2005-2/11/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 13684 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Central Coast Watershed Studies (R3_CCOWS) data for Uvas Creek(below res) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 11 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCoWS (Central Coast Watershed Studies) Water Quality Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Uvas Creek(below res) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Luchessa] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 12/28/2003-3/1/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good and Standard Operating Procedures are well documented in QAPP. However, data documentation is poor and replicate samples and other quality assurance measurements are not consistently documented in this data set. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||