Draft California 2020 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name:	Olema Creek
Water Body ID:	CAR2011303020070615132740
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	88964	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	Anthracene \| Benzo(a)anthracene \| Benzo(a)pyrene \| Chlordane (sediment) \| Chrysene (C1-C4) \| DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) \| DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) \| DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) \| DDT (sediment) \| Dieldrin (sediment) \| Endrin \| Fluoranthene \| Fluorene \| Heptachlor epoxide \| Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) \| Naphthalene \| PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) (sediment) \| PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) (sediment) \| Phenanthrene \| Pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Zero 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 one sample exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88964, Multiple Pollutants	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

28505

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Concentrations of anthracene, fluorene, napthalene, phenanthrene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthrene, pyrene, PAH (total), PCB (total), chlordane, dieldrin, DDD/DDE/DDT, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, and HCH, gamma in one sediment sample collected in spring 2002 did not exceed the sediment quality guidelines.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Sediment Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) Anthracene - 845 ug/kg; Fluorene - 536 ug/kg; Naphthalene - 561 ug/kg;
Phenanthrene -1170 ug/kg; Benz(a)anthracene - 1050 ug/kg; Benzo(a)pyrene - 1450 ug/kg; Chrysene - 1290 ug/kg; Fluoranthene - 2230 ug/kg; Pyrene - 1520 ug/kg; PAH (total) - 22800 ug/kg; PCB (total) - 676 ug/kg; Chlordane - 17.6 ug/kg; Dieldrin - 61.8 ug/kg; DDD (sum op + pp) - 28 ug/kg; DDE (sum op + pp) - 31.3 ug/kg; DDT (sum op + pp) - 62.9 ug/kg; DDT (total) - 572 ug/kg; Endrin - 207 ug/kg; Heptachlor epoxide - 16 ug/kg; HCH, gamma - 4.99 ug/kg.

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Olema Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Sediment sample was collected in spring 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	89042	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	Arsenic \| Chromium (total) \| Copper \| Lead \| Nickel \| Silver \| Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Zero 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 one sample exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89042, Multiple Pollutants	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

30335

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Lagunitas Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for arsenic, chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc. Concentrations of total dissolved chromium were well below the objective for chromium VI.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
Table 3-4 in the Basin Plan (2007) lists freshwater water quality objectives for toxic pollutants: arsenic- 150 ug/L, chromium VI- 11 ug/L, copper - 9.0 ug/L, lead - 2.5 ug/L; nickel - 52 ug/L, silver - 3.4 ug/L and zinc - 120 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at one sampling location on Lagunitas Creek - LAG040 (Olema Low).

Temporal Representation:

Sample was collected during the spring season of the 2001-2002 sampling season.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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)


DECISION ID	77027	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos \| Dacthal \| Diazinon \| Disulfoton \| Endosulfan \| Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) \| Methyl Parathion \| PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) \| Thiobencarb/Bolero
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Zero 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 one sample exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77027, Multiple Pollutants	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

28992

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The Olema Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. The sample did not exceed the water quality objectives for PCBs, Chlorpyrifos, Dacthal, diazinon, disulfoton, endosulfan, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH), methyl parathion, thiobencarb.

Data Reference:

Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community.
Diazinon water quality objective, 0.1 ug/L (acute)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

PCBs - 0.014 ug/L freshwater continuous Concentration; Chlorpyrifos - 0.015 ug/L (chronic); Dacthal (DCPA) - 14300 ug/L (acute); Disulfoton (Disyston) - 0.05 ug/L (acute); Endosulfan - 0.056 ug/L (chronic)/0.22 ug/L (acute); HCH, gamma-(gamma BHC, Lindane) - 0.95 ug/L (acute); methyl parathion - 0.08 ug/L (acute); Thiobencarb - 3.1 ug/L (acute).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at one sampling location: LAG040 (Olema Low) in Olema Creek.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected at one location (as part of the larger Lagunitas Creek watershed) in spring of the 2001 - 2002 sampling season.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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)


DECISION ID	89127	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	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(s) 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. None of the samples exceeded the dissolved oxygen objectives and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89127, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

29265

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water quality assessment was conducted at Lagunitas Creek watershed to characterize Olema Creek as part of SWAMP assessment in 2002. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two locations. The 7 day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.01 to 9.71 mg/L. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 7.0 mg/L minimum for waters designated as cold water habitat. The median dissolved oxygen concentration for any three consecutive months shall not be less than 80 percent of the dissolved oxygen content at saturation.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Dissolved oxygen was measured at two sites located on the mainstem of Olema Creek that are representative of the entire creek length.

Temporal Representation:

At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 6-16 days during spring and summer seasons of 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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)


DECISION ID	77531	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 four samples exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77531, Temperature, water	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

29036

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water quality assessment was conducted at the Olema Creek as part of the Lagunitas Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2001-2002. Continuous field monitoring at 15 minute increments of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two locations in Olema Creek. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed 4 times at 2 monitoring location during spring and dry seasons. The measured temperatures ranged from 9.26oC to 19.98°C and varied with season and location. The 7-day mean temperature ranged from 11.9 to 16.5oC and did not exceed the 17oC threshold for steelhead .

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Temperature objectives for enclosed bays and estuaries are specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions to the plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The 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 an alteration does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Sullivan et al. (2000) reviewed a wide range of studies incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches and developed criteria for assessing temperature risk to aquatic life. The 7-day mean temperature (maximum value of a 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) of 14.8°C was established as the upper threshold criterion for coho salmon and 17.0°C for steelhead trout. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000)suggest that temperatures exceeding the above thresholds will cause a 10% reduction in average growth compared to optimal conditions.

Guideline Reference:

An Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria

Spatial Representation:

Temperature was measured at two sites located on the mainstream of Olema Creek.

Temporal Representation:

In 2002 the SWAMP Program performed continious monitoring of temperature at 15 minute intervals for periods of 1-2 weeks at three to five locations in four different seasons: winter, spring, and two summer dry seasons.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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)


DECISION ID	77071	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Zero 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 one sample exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77071, Toxicity	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

28825

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water toxicity sampling for Olema Creek was included in the sampling for Lagunitas Creek. One sample was collected in 2001 to evaluate water toxicity in Olema Creek. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and growth of fathead minnow, and growth of Selenastrum. No significant toxicity was observed in this sample.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Water toxicity was evaluated according to the SWAMP methodology. The U.S.EPA whole effluent toxicity protocol (U.S.EPA 1994) was used to test the effect of water samples on three freshwater test organisms. Statistical evaluation (alpha = 0.05) and a default threshold of 80% of the control value were used to establish whether water exhibited significant toxicity adversely impacting aquatic organisms.

Guideline Reference:

Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-91/002. Third Edition. July 1994

Guideline Reference:

Revised approach to toxicity test acceptability criteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 16, No. 6, pp 1322¿1329

Spatial Representation:

Toxicity tests were conducted on water sample from lower Olema Creek (LAG040).

Temporal Representation:

Toxicity testing was conducted in 2001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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)


DECISION ID	77682	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 four samples exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77682, pH	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

29037

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water quality assessment was conducted at the Olema Creek as part of the Lagunitas Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2001-2002. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two locations in Olema Creek. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed 4 times at 2 monitoring location during spring and dry seasons. The pH ranged from 6.6 to 7.9 and varied with season. The pH did not exceed the maximum or drop below the minimum recommended value for any deployment.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

pH was measured at two sites located on the mainstem of Olema Creek.

Temporal Representation:

In 2002 the SWAMP Program performed continuous monitoring of temperature at 15 minute intervals for periods of 1-2 weeks at two locations, and in two different seasons: spring wet (May), and summer dry (August).

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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)


DECISION ID	70354	Region 2
Olema Creek

Pollutant:	Pathogens
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
TMDL Name:	Tomales Bay Pathogens
TMDL Project Code:	10
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	01/10/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. On February 8, 2007, the Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay region was amended to incorporate a TMDL for pathogens in Tomales Bay, and an implementation plan to achieve the TMDL. The amendment was adopted by the Regional Water Board on September 21, 2005, and has been approved by the State Water Resources Control Board, the state Office of Administrative Law, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL and implementation plan was approved by USEPA on 1/10/2007 and it includes Olema Creek (USEPA, 2007). Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this Water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70354, Pathogens	Region 2
Olema Creek

LOE ID:

1768

Pollutant:

Pathogens

LOE Subgroup:

Narrative Description Data

Matrix:

-N/A

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

This is a placeholder LOE for a USEPA addition to the 2006 303(d) list. The Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL and implementation plan was approved by USEPA on 1/10/2007 and it includes Olema Creek

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):