Water Body Name: | Camp Evers Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR3041204120080603112335 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
125625 |
Region 3 |
Camp Evers Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | No Source Analysis Available |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2035 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | The State Water Boards Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (the ISWEBE Plan) contains two bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use, which were adopted on August 7, 2018. Because the salinity level of this waterbody is equal to or less than 1 part per thousand 95 percent or more of the time, the E. coli bacteria objective applies. Therefore, this waterbody is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.3 of the Listing Policy, as applicable, using the E. coli objective. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. E. coli populations may fluctuate substantially on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. Lacking constant inputs, indicator bacteria do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of E. coli in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Additionally, water quality conditions in waterbodies may change as a result of management actions that have been implemented to address E. coli. Unrepresentative data may result in incorrectly placing or not placing a water body segment on the CWA section 303(d) List, which could result in the unnecessary expenditure of public resources or missing a human health problem. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to 2010 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. Although three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, this decision is based upon evaluation of the E. coli data collected since 2010 (see LOE 149876) which are most representative of existing conditions in the waterbody. One of the one samples collected since 2010 exceed the water quality objective and therefore there are an insufficient number of samples available to determine if the water quality objective is supported. The data were collected between 2010 and 2018 and represent a range of hydrologic conditions (both wet and dry years). This sample count of data collected since 2010 is adequate to determine beneficial use support in accordance with the Listing Policy. Note, there are two lines of evidence summarizing historic data (data collected prior to 2010) compared to the USEPA’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (USEPA, 1986). A total of 70 of the 87 historic samples exceed the USEPA criteria set to protect for water contact recreation. These data are not used for making this decision. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the CWA section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. 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. There are an insufficient number of samples to determine if the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy is exceeded. 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 removed from 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the CWA section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. 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. There are an insufficient number of samples to determine if the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy is exceeded. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 58700 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 50 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 33 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-three of the 50 samples exceeded the E. coli objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from San Lorenzo River Estuary Watershed TMDL for Pathogens and the Aptos/Valencia Creek TMDL for Pathogens, May 2000-Aug. 2006 | ||||
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. Central Coast Region Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the E. coli concentration shall not exceed 235/100ml. USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Camp Evers Creek at Carbonera Creek, at Whispering Pines and at Cold Stream Way. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from Carbonera Creek monthly from 2005-2006 and from the other sites monthly from January to February 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected under Quality Assurance Project Plan Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Beach Contamination Monitoring of Santa Cruz Mainbeach Water Quality Improvements and Related Efforts. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 149867 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for Camp Evers Creek to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality threshold for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all non-saline waters, is a Statistical Threshold Value (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL. The applicable STV shall not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected in a calendar month, calculated in a static manner (ISWEBE 2018). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 304-CAMPE-21 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2016-05-07 and 2016-05-07 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monterey Bay NMS. 2003. California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 58687 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 37 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-seven of the 37 samples exceeded the E. coli geomean objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from San Lorenzo River Estuary Watershed TMDL for Pathogens and the Aptos/Valencia Creek TMDL for Pathogens, May 2000-Aug. 2006 | ||||
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. Central Coast Region Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Geometric Mean: In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the E. coli concentration shall not exceed 126/100ml. USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Camp Evers Creek at Carbonera Creek, at Whispering Pines and at Cold Stream Way. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from Carbonera Creek monthly from 2005-2006 and from the other sites monthly from January to February 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected under Quality Assurance Project Plan Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Beach Contamination Monitoring of Santa Cruz Mainbeach Water Quality Improvements and Related Efforts. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
125728 |
Region 3 |
Camp Evers 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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Lines of evidence for the pollutant name Nitrate and for the pollutant name Nitrogen, Nitrate are combined and sample and exceedance counts are summed for the purpose of making this decision. Once summed, zero of the 109 samples exceed the Municipal & Domestic Supply water quality objective. There is insufficient information to determine if the aquatic life beneficial uses are supported. 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. 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 samples exceed the water quality objectives 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 173169 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial 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: | Water Board staff assessed MBNMS Snapshot Day data for Camp Evers Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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 (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (304-CAMPE-21) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-07 and 2016-05-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monterey Bay NMS. 2003. California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 172989 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed MBNMS Snapshot Day data for Camp Evers Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries shall not contain concentrations of inorganic chemicals in excess of the maximum contaminant levels for primary drinking water standards specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Sections 64431 and 64433.2. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate (as N) 10.0 mg/L (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | California MCLs - Title 17 and Title 22 documents for 2019 - California Regulations Related to Drinking Water | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (304-CAMPE-21) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-07 and 2016-05-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monterey Bay NMS. 2003. California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 172756 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial 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: | Water Board staff assessed MBNMS Snapshot Day data for Camp Evers Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Water data for the 2020/2022 integrated report in Region 3. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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 (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Technical approach to develop nutrient numeric endpoints for California, Tetra Tech, June 2006. The Central Coast Region numeric target for maximum nitrate concentration is based on the Tetra Tech NNE (Nutrient Numeric Endpoint) Model and CCAMP data for 193 sites, monitored monthly for at least 1 year between January 1998 and December 2006. The model numeric target for aquatic life habitats in the Central Coast Region is 1.0 mg/L Nitrate as N. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Central Coast RegionTechnical Paper: Interpreting Narrative Objectives for Biostimulatory Substances for California Central Coast Waters. This method uses the Technical Approach for Developing California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (304-CAMPE-21) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-07 and 2016-05-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monterey Bay NMS. 2003. California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Coast Wide Snapshot Day 2003 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 18605 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 108 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 108 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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 |
85986 |
Region 3 |
Camp Evers Creek |
||
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 pollutant total ammonia. This decision contains all of the LOEs from the previous decision. 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 exceed the Evaluation Guideline (EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level, 2006) applied to protect the Municipal & Domestic Supply beneficial use. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List 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 exceed the Evaluation Guideline (EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level, 2006) applied to protect the Municipal & Domestic Supply beneficial use and the sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if water quality standards are met or exceeded. 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: | 19686 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia As N, Total. | ||||
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: | 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/31/2001. | ||||
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 |
76769 |
Region 3 |
Camp Evers 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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of the 109 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Cold Freshwater Habitats and 1 of the 109 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Warm 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 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 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. Five of the 109 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Cold Freshwater Habitats and 1 of the 109 samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in Warm Freshwater Habitats. Neither 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: | 19793 | ||||
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: | 109 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 109 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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: | 19794 | ||||
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: | 109 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 109 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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 |
72535 |
Region 3 |
Camp Evers 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: | 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 114 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 114 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: | 19876 | ||||
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: | 114 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 114 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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 |
72319 |
Region 3 |
Camp Evers 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: | No new data.
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. One of the 66 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. One of the 66 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: | 19646 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 66 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 66 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-7/26/2000. | ||||
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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 19645 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 66 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 66 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-7/26/2000. | ||||
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 |
72527 |
Region 3 |
Camp Evers Creek |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
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: | 2027 |
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 sections 2.1 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.2 the site exceeded numeric objectives for conventional pollutants. According to the binomial distribution, waters shall be placed on the section 303(d) list if the number of measured exceedances supports rejection of the null hypothesis as presented in Table 3.2. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. 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-four of 113 samples exceeded the Warm and Cold Freshwater habitat water quality objectives and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 19639 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 113 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 24 of 113 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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: | 19640 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 113 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 113 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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: | 19641 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 113 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 113 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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: | 19643 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 113 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 24 of 113 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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: | 19642 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 113 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
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 Spring Lakes Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 113 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 Spring Lakes Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304SPL_SCC - SPRING LAKES CR at CARBONERA CR] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/25/1992-10/6/2005. | ||||
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): | |||||