|
LOE ID: |
27544 |
|
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 (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/30/2001-9/24/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
27536 |
|
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 (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/30/2001-9/24/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
27535 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
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 Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
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: |
27531 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
10 |
Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/30/2001-9/24/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
27532 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
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 Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring sites[ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
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: |
27539 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Non-Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
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 Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
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: |
27540 |
|
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 (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/30/2001-9/24/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
27543 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
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 Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
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): |
|
DECISION ID |
16244 |
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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. Six of 8 samples exceeded the water quality objective for copper in aquatic life habitats and this 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16244 |
|
LOE ID: |
27516 |
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
8 |
Number of Exceedances: |
6 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. |
Data Reference: |
Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006
|
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents known to be deleterious to fish or wildlife in excess of the limits listed in Table 3-5 (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). Table 3-5 (page III-11) states, the maximum concentration for copper in aquatic life habitats is 0.03 mg/L. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - at Major Sherman]. |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/10/2000-11/8/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
16245 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Natural Sources | Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1 and 3.3 of the Listing Policy.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.3 the site exceeded numeric objectives for conventional pollutants. According to the binomial distribution, waters shall be placed on the section 303(d) list if the number of measured exceedances supports rejection of the null hypothesis as presented in Table 3.2.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Ten of 12 samples exceeded the water quality objective for Evaluation Guideline (USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, 1986) as it applies to the Water Contact Recreation beneficial use and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16245 |
|
LOE ID: |
27537 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Non-Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
8 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PATHOGEN MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 8 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/10/2000-11/8/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
27541 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
8 |
Number of Exceedances: |
7 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PATHOGEN MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 7 of 8 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
|
|
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 Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/10/2000-11/8/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
|
LOE ID: |
27538 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Non-Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
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 Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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
|
|
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 Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring sites [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
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: |
27542 |
|
Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
|
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 Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 4 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
|
|
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 Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
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): |
|
DECISION ID |
16246 |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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. Three of 8 samples exceeded the water quality objective for lead in aquatic life habitats and this 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16246 |
|
LOE ID: |
27526 |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial 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 Coastal Watershed Council (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. |
Data Reference: |
Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006
|
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents known to be deleterious to fish or wildlife in excess of the limits listed in Table 3-5 (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). Table 3-5 (page III-11) states, the maximum concentration for lead in aquatic life habitats is 0.03 mg/L. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/10/2000-11/8/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
16250 |
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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. Six of 8 samples exceeded the water quality objective for zinc in aquatic life habitats and this 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16250 |
|
LOE ID: |
27530 |
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
8 |
Number of Exceedances: |
6 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Central Coast Regional Board Staff assessed Coastal Watershed Council (First Flush monitoring) (R3_FF) data for Majors Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. |
Data Reference: |
Final Data File used for assessment: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer Monitoring Network Data. 2003-2006
|
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents known to be deleterious to fish or wildlife in excess of the limits listed in Table 3-5 (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Chapter III, Section II.A.2 Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries). Table 3-5 (page III-11) states, the maximum concentration for zinc in aquatic life habitats is 0.2 mg/L |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan Central Coast Region (R3) Basin Plan |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Data for this line of evidence for Majors Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ 309-MAJOR-31 - Major Sherman] |
Temporal Representation: |
Data was collected over the time period 10/10/2000-11/8/2005. Coastal Watershed Council First Flush Monitoring is conducted annually, following the first major storm event. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
QAPP Information: |
Regional Board approved QAPP. Multiple errors were identified in data and were flagged or fixed by RB staff (in communication with Project staff) prior to assessment of data. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |