Water Body Name: | Woodrow Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR3041103120080603114858 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
130731 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data assessed in the 2020 cycle. Pore water LOEs (58996 and 58995) are removed This decision is a placeholder decision and there are no data associated with this decision. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) List. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 227003 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | |||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | NA | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 8. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
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: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | NA | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
DECISION ID |
130732 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | No new data assessed in the 2020 cycle. Pore water LOEs (58998 and 58997) are removed This decision is a placeholder decision and there are no data associated with this decision. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) List. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 227002 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | |||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | NA | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 8. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
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: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | NA | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
DECISION ID |
72367 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
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: | 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. The single sample did not exceed the Municipal and Domestic 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. The single sample did not exceed the Municipal and Domestic 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: | 19920 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 11/23/1999-11/13/2000. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
71926 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample exceeded the water quality objectives for both Cold and Warm Freshwater Habitats. 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 supported and a minimum of five exceedances is needed to determine if beneficial uses are not supported using table 3.2. 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. 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 water quality objectives for both Cold and Warm Freshwater Habitats. However, 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: | 19810 | ||||
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: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 19809 | ||||
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: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72153 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. The single sample did not exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Moyle 1976) applied to protect the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use. 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 did not exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Moyle 1976) applied to protect the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 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: | 19202 | ||||
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: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
87336 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
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: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 3.6 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status and a water segment shall be placed on the section 303(d) List if the water segment exhibits statistically significant water or sediment toxicity using the binomial distribution as described in section 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results (or endpoints) but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location. The single sample did not exceed the water quality objective for aquatic life protection because they resulted in a significant toxic effect to the test organisms. 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 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 did not exceed the water quality objective 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 58999 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 3 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 304SUP105. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in January 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
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. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 80381 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 3 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | SWAMP_Memo_Toxicity_Data_Intrepretation | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 304SUP105. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in January 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
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. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
81094 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
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 3.2 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. The single sample did not exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Sigler et al., 1984) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. 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 did not exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Sigler et al., 1984) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses 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: | 19441 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 19442 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72154 |
Region 3 |
Woodrow Creek |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample did not exceed any of the water quality objectives. 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 did not exceed any of the water quality objectives and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 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: | 19520 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 19543 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 19518 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 19521 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 19519 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Monitoring Program (R3_SCCEH) data for Woodrow Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1971-1996 | ||||
Final Data File used for assessment: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health data 1997-2006 | |||||
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 Woodrow Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304WOM_SCC - WOODROW CR at MOUTH] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/15/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | This monitoring program has been underway for thirty years, with changes over time to protocols, level of QA, and documentation. In general, QA documentation included with the dataset is minimal. However, data quality appears to be reasonably good. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||