| Water Body Name: | Arana Gulch |
| Water Body ID: | CAR3041205119990222133711 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
22524 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 samples exceed the 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. Zero of 14 samples exceeded the General objective as it applies to aquatic life beneficial uses and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9149 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 (General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries) states that the discharge of wastes shall not cause concentrations of unionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters (page III-4) . | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
27501 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (North Carolina Administrative code, Title 15A) and the General Water Quality Objective set to protect aquatic life beneficial uses. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline (North Carolina Administrative code, Title 15A) and the General Water Quality Objective set to protect aquatic life beneficial uses and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9150 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorophyll-a | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorophyll a. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (general objective for biostimulatory substances, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | |||||
| Water quality standards table | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | North Carolina Administrative code (NCAC), Title 15A - Environmental and Natural Resources, Subchapter 2B-Surface water and wetland standards, Rule 0211-Fresh surface water quality standards for class C waters (Class C is defined as freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife). Section 3(a) of Rule 0211 applies to all fresh surface waters and states that chlorophyll a is not to exceed 40 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | ||||
| North Carolina standards, criteria, or toxic concentrations. Adopted per title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 2B - Surface water and wetland standards | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
23067 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 samples exceed the 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. Zero of two samples exceeded the criterion 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 16771 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality 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 | ||||
| Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.16 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch at La Fonda Ave] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-5/30/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22780 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Low Dissolved Oxygen |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the dissolved oxygen water quality objective for Cold Freshwater Habitat. Five of 15 samples exceed the general water quality objective for oxygen saturation (applied as a single sample maximum). However, the Basin Plan objective states that the median shall not fall below 85% saturation and the median value did not exceed this criteria. 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 25 samples exceeded the Cold Freshwater Habitat 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12116 | ||||
| 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: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Cold Water Habitat Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12133 | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Sampling (DO) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Cold Water Habitat Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/25/2005. Diurnal monitoring conducted in summer months at all CCAMP monitoring sites. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 18041 | ||||
| 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: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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 Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder, 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/6/2006. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12117 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Saturation. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: Median values should not fall below 85% saturation as a result of controllable water quality conditions. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12134 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Sampling (DO) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Saturation. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: Median values should not fall below 85% saturation as a result of controllable water quality conditions. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/25/2005. Diurnal monitoring conducted in summer months at all CCAMP monitoring sites. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22842 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the 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. Zero of 22 samples exceeded the Municipal and Domestic Supply 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9151 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin Objective for municipal and domestic supply uses of inland surface waters (Section II.A.2) states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Article 4, Chapter 15, Section 64435, Tables 2 and 3 as listed in Table 3-2. The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 3-2 (inorganic and fluoride concentrations not to be exceeded in domestic or municipal supply) for nitrate is 10.0 mg/L (NO3 as N). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
| Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 18381 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
| Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork, 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/7/2005. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22944 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 samples exceed the water quality objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply. 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. Zero of 15 samples exceeded the water quality objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9148 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Health Advisory 2006 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories (EPA 822-R-06-013, 2006). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. This Advisory Level is defined as "the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to ten days of exposure." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22781 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the 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. One of 25 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (Moyle 1976) as it is applied to the Cold Freshwater Habitat 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12132 | ||||
| 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: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (General Objective in Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 18673 | ||||
| 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: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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 Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder, 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/6/2006. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12135 | ||||
| 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 CCAMP Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Sampling (DO) data for Arana Gulch 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: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (General Objective in Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/25/2005. Diurnal monitoring conducted in summer months at all CCAMP monitoring sites. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22782 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 8 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for turbidity (Sigler et al. (1984)) as it is applied to the Cold Freshwater Habitat 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 12131 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Turbidity(NTU). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTU's or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
28281 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Unknown 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant in water samples. One of the samples were toxic to test organisms (exhibited a significant increase in mortality or decrease in cell density compared to the laboratory control) and therefore do not exceed the narrative General Objective for toxicity, set to protect for aquatic life beneficial uses. The following is a summary of the results from individual toxicity tests. One of the 2 samples (tested for toxicity to plants) exhibited significant reduction in cell density relative to the control. In addition, none of the 2 samples (tested for toxicity to vertebrate test organisms) exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. Lastly, none of the 2 samples, tested for toxicity to invertebrate test organisms exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. 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 2 samples (tested for toxicity to plants) exhibited significant reduction in cell density relative to the control. In addition, none of the 2 samples (tested for toxicity to vertebrate test organisms) exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. Lastly, none of the 2 samples, tested for toxicity to invertebrate test organisms exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. Therefore, 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 23535 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Invertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch at La Fonda Ave] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-5/30/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 23540 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Vertebrate Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Pimephales promelas Survival (%) 7 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction of survival of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and test organism survival is 20% less than the control survival. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch at La Fonda Ave] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-5/30/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 23541 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Plant Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxicity, Selenastrum capricornutum Growth (Cell Density) 4 days. Toxicity is defined by SWAMP (2004) as follows: Significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (both criteria are met). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Significant reduction in cell count of test organism relative to the control (alpha < 0.05) and cell count <80% of control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch at La Fonda Ave]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-5/30/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22994 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective for Cold Freshwater Habitat. None of the samples exceed water quality objectives for Municipal and Domestic Supply, Non-contact Recreation or 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. One out of 25 of the samples exceed the water quality objective for Cold Freshwater Habitat. None of the samples exceed water quality objectives for Municipal and Domestic Supply, Non-contact Recreation or Water Contact Recreation. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 19016 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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 Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder, 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/6/2006. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10674 | ||||
| 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 CCAMP Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Sampling (DO) data for Arana Gulch 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: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Section II.A.2. Municipal and Domestic Supply Objectives, Section II.A.2.a states the following: The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/25/2005. Diurnal monitoring conducted in summer months at all CCAMP monitoring sites. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10675 | ||||
| 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 CCAMP Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Sampling (DO) data for Arana Gulch 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: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/25/2005. Diurnal monitoring conducted in summer months at all CCAMP monitoring sites. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10658 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Section II.A.2. Municipal and Domestic Supply Objectives, Section II.A.2.a states the following: The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10661 | ||||
| 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 CCAMP Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Sampling (DO) data for Arana Gulch 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: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/25/2005. Diurnal monitoring conducted in summer months at all CCAMP monitoring sites. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10660 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10659 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 19017 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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 Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder, 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/6/2006. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 19018 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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 Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder, 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/6/2006. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 19019 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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 Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder, 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/6/2006. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10657 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, General Objective, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 General Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries states the following: For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10676 | ||||
| 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 CCAMP Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Sampling (DO) data for Arana Gulch 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: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 8/25/2005. Diurnal monitoring conducted in summer months at all CCAMP monitoring sites. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22825 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1 and 3.1 of the Listing Policy. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.1 the site exceeded numeric objectives for toxic pollutants. Using 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 3.1. 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. Two of 2 samples exceeded the water quality objective and this meets or exceeds 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| State Board Staff 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: | 16348 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP_SWAMP Monitoring (04SW3001) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Toxicity Data 2001-06 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: SWAMP Sediment Chemistry Data from Region 3 Harbors, 2004 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality 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 | ||||
| Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | One hour average maximum concentration 0.025 ug/L as stated in Sipmann and Finlayson (2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch at La Fonda Ave] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-5/30/2006. SWAMP toxicity monitoring includes both water samples (collected in both winter and summer) and sediment samples (collected in spring). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22840 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Four 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. Using 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. Ten of 22 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for E. coli (USEPA 1996) as it is applied to the Water Contact Recreation objective. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| State Board Staff 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: | 10643 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 7 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Single sample maximum allowable density for E. coli in freshwater is 235 MPN/100mL (as stated in Table 4, page 15) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 18283 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| 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: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 2000/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 4000/100 ml. E. coli is a fecal coliform. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork, 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/7/2005. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 18282 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (Snapshot day monitoring) (R3_Snap) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Single sample maximum allowable density for E. coli in freshwater is 235 MPN/100mL (as stated in Table 4, page 15) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ 304-ARANA-22 - Arana Creek at Paul Sweet Rd and Maybe Lane, 304-ARANA-23 - Arana Creek At Mid-fork, 304-ARANA-21 - Arana Creek At Harbor High fish ladder] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/17/2003-5/7/2005. Coastal Watershed Council Snapshot Day Monitoring is conducted annually. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | State Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10644 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 2000/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 4000/100 ml. E. coli is a fecal coliform. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22841 |
Region 3 |
Arana Gulch |
||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Two 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. Using 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. Seven of 15 samples exceeded the Water Contact Recreation objective. 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 3 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| State Board Staff 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: | 10642 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for non-contact water recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 2000/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 4000/100 ml. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 10641 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed CCAMP Pajaro (Pajaro) data for Arana Gulch to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 7 of 15 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file1 | ||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file2 | |||||
| Final Data File used for assessment: CCAMP Water Quality Data_file3 | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin objective for water contact recreation uses (Section II.A.2. Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, II.A.2.a) states the following: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN/100 ml. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Coast Region (Region 3) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Arana Gulch was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 304ARA-Arana Gulch below golf course] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/19/2005-3/9/2006. Pajaro watershed is one of five annual rotation areas that are monitored for conventional pollutants by CCAMP staff monthly for one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. All data are flagged as appropriate. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||