Water Body Name: | Two Bar Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR3041201120020124152041 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
80455 |
Region 3 |
Two Bar 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. None of the 101 samples 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. None of the 101 samples exceed the Municipal and Domestic Supply 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: | 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: | 18681 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 101 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 101 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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 |
100060 |
Region 3 |
Two Bar 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. One of the 107 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Cold Freshwater Habitats. 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 Cold 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 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. One of the 107 samples exceeded 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: | 19832 | ||||
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: | 107 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 107 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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 |
80504 |
Region 3 |
Two Bar 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. None of the 107 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. None of the 107 samples 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: | 19899 | ||||
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: | 107 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 107 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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 |
80505 |
Region 3 |
Two Bar 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 92 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Sigler et al., 1984) applied to protect for 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 92 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (Sigler et al., 1984) applied to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 19666 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 92 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 92 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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 |
73098 |
Region 3 |
Two Bar 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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 108 samples exceed the Cold Freshwater Habitat water quality objective and 5 of 108 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. Two of 108 samples exceed the Cold Freshwater Habitat water quality objective and 5 of 108 samples exceed the numeric objective for Municipal & Domestic Supply, Non-Contact Recreation and Water Contact Recreation and none of these 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: | 19777 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 108 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 108 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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: | 19776 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 108 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 108 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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: | 19778 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 108 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 108 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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: | 19761 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 108 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
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 Two Bar Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 108 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 Two Bar Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304TBC_SCC - TWO BAR CR. at SLR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/28/1996-8/2/2006. | ||||
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): | |||||