Fall 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter

8/3/2019 Fall 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fall-2006-california-runoff-rundown-newsletter 1/16

NPS pollution are historical – thelegacy impacts of mining andlogging and the roads built to do

both. These legacies, plus a dramaticincrease in motorized vehiclerecreation, continued timber har-vests and more frequent and moreintense forest fires, combine todamage forest waters. How to cleanup pollution from the past andadopt and enforce forest manage-ment policies and practices thatmaintain water quality into thefuture are challenges that loom aslarge as the Sierra itself.

A N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E W A T E R E D U C A T I O N F O U N D A T I O N

CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

Fal l 20 06

BY K ATHERINE N OBLE-GOODMAN

“It is not only delightfully cool and

bright, but brisk, sparkling, exhilarat-

ing, and so positively delicious to the

taste …”

John Muir’s description of theOwens River near its headwatershigh in the Eastern Sierra epito-

mizes the image most Californianshave of the mountain streams thatrun through the state’s millions of acres of forest. And it is an imagethat remains, for the most part,correct. Forests play a starring rolein the water cycle – particularly onthe clean up side of things – and

the quality of the water that flowsdown from California’s mountainsis generally quite high, particularly

when compared to storm water andother runoff from lawns and farms.But these forest rivers and streamscontinue to be threatened bynonpoint source (NPS) pollution,and much like polluted runoff fromresidential and agricultural sources,reducing or eliminating forest NPSpollution, and undertaking theclean up, is an ongoing challenge.

The situation in forested water-sheds is complicated by the fact thatthree of the main contributors to

In This IssueClimate Change and Wildfires:

An Explosive, Murky Mix ...... 3

Nonpoint Source News ....... . 9

TMDL Roundup ................. 12

Urban Runoff News...... ...... 14

Fal l 20 06

NPS Pollution in California’s Forested Watersheds:

Past, Present and Future Threats

NPS Pollution in California’s Forested Watersheds:

Past, Present and Future Threats



Edi tors

Rita Schmidt SudmanSue McClurg

Writer

Katherine Noble-Goodman

Edi tor ia l Assi s tance

Diana Farmer

P h o t o s

California Department of Water Resources

Pacific Watershed AssociatesSierra Pacific Industries

Stuart Noble-Goodman

UC Davis (Sylvia Wright)Wildscaping.com

D e s ig n a n d La y o u t

Curt Leipold,

Graphic Communications

The Water Education Foundation thanksall the sources and experts who reviewed

this newsletter for balance and accuracy.

Water Education Foundation

717 K St., Suite 317Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 444-6240

Fax (916) 448-7699e-mail: [email protected]

W e b p a g e : w w w . w a t e r e d u c a t i o n . o rg

Pres ident

Michael Armstrong

Execut ive Direc tor

Rita Schmidt Sudman

Laurel Ames, California Watershed Network

Grant Davis, Th e Bay Institute

Dennis Dickerson, Pima Association of Governments

Steve Fagundes, State W ater Resources Control Board

David Guy, Northern California W ater Association

Jake Mackenzie, City of Rohnert Park

Daniel Merkley, State Water Resources Control Board

Michele Stress, San Diego Count y Department of Public W orks

Sam Ziegler, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency

The California Runoff Rundown is published

by the Water Education Founda tion. The

mission of the Water Edu cation Foun dation,

an imp artial, non-profit organization, is to

create a better und erstanding of water issuesand h elp resolve water resource problems

through educational programs. The

California Runoff Rundown is published

through a grant from the State Water

Resources Control Board w ith fund ing from

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

under the Federal Nonpoint Source

Pollution Control Program (Clean Water Act

Section 319). Its contents do not represent

position s of the State Board or U.S. EPA, and

neither organization has end orsed the

contents.

Em ail your story ideas to Katherine No ble-Goo dm an,

kno blegoodm [email protected]

2 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN FALL 2006

W

ith this issue, I would like to introduce you to Katherine Noble-Goodman, the new writer of The California Runoff Rundown.Katherine brings an extensive background in writing and educa-

tion to the Foundation, having served as a freelance writer for a variety of publications, including U.S. Water News. Most recently, Katherine taughtseminars on the environmental history of water in California, as well asproblem-solving courses on sustainable water use at the University of Redlands.

We think her passion for writing about California water would beappreciated by Glenn Totten, who died in June after a long battle withcancer. Many of you may have known Glenn personally or through hisbyline – he was a prolific writer of articles for Western Water and River

Report , our Colorado River newsletter. Closer to home, he became an experton nonpoint source pollution issues and helped create Th e California Runoff

Rundown.

When she came on board, Katherine began researching potential topicsand decided to focus on the importance of forests to clean water andhealthy watersheds, and the increasing efforts to protect against futuredamage and clean up contamination from the past.

The next issue of The California Runoff Rundown will be publishedin spring 2007. If you have an example of a successful runoff project,

please contact us. x



FALL2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 3

Wildfires in the West have

become more frequent,more intense and longer

lasting in the past few decades,leading to an increase in sedimentand other nonpoint source (NPS)pollution of forested watershedsboth during and after these cata-strophic events. Until recently,experts laid most of the blame onhistoric fire suppression practices.Now, researchers have identifiedanother key contributor, as well:global warming.

According to an analysis of 34years of forest fire and hydro-climate data published in Augustin the journal Science, earlier springsnowmelt combined with warmerspring and summer temperaturesin the western United States caused“an abrupt transition in the mid-1980s from a regime of infrequentlarge wildfires of short duration toone with much more frequent andlonger-burning fires.”

Indeed, in the past few decades,the average fire season has increasedby two months, and fires havebecome more frequent, longer-burning and harder to put out. Lastyear, wildfires burned 8.53 millionacres nationwide by the end of December. As of mid-September,some 82,000 fires had alreadyburned 8.85 million acres this year.

Sediment, nutrients and chemicalfire retardants contaminate forest

and downstream waters during and

after fires; temperature also can bea NPS pollutant, either temporarilyfrom the heat of the fire itself, orlonger-term from the loss of ripar-ian habitat and shade.

No one understands these waterquality impacts better than folks insouthern California, where 120,000acres in the San Bernardino NationalForest burned in 2003, and sedimentand other NPS pollutants continueto run off into the Santa Ana Riverwatershed.

Some 20,000 acre-feet of sedi-ment-laden runoff flowed into thebasins from the 91,000-acre “OldFire” alone, according to the SantaAna Watershed Project Authority.“People described some of thosewaters as looking like chocolatepudding,” said Daniel Cozad,former general manager of theAuthority.

Storm water runoff from burnedforested areas contains high concen-trations of manganese, lead, phos-phorus, mercury, total organiccarbon and uranium. In the yearafter the fires in southern California,record rainfall overwhelmed thewatershed with sediment-ladenrunoff, slowing percolation into thewatershed’s groundwater basins andcausing an overflow problem down-stream. Millions of dollars have beenspent on sediment removal, but theoverall damage to the watershed,

including the impact on numerousthreatened and endangered species,is incalculable, said Cozad.

The nutrient-rich runoff from

the San Bernardino fires that burnednearly 100 miles inland also contrib-uted to the growing problem of nutrient pollution in the Pacific OceanA recent Los An geles Times seriesentitled Altered Oceans examinedthe devastating, long-term conse-quences of excessive nutrients oncoastal water quality. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceansla-oceans-series,0,7842752.special)

These and other consequences of nonpoint source pollution from

wildland fires will likely increase ashistoric fire suppression, massive clearcuts at the turn of the last century,and global warming have createdforests that are ripe for catastrophicfire. These conditions are not uniqueto southern California, said Cozad,and what happened in 2003 is almostcertain to happen again in the SantaAna River watershed and elsewherethroughout the state.

How to best reduce the threatof high intensity, ecologically

damaging wildfires is alreadycontroversial, and with globalwarming now entering the discus-sion, finding solutions will un-doubtedly become even morechallenging, and more crucial.Some 3,000 scientists, fire fighters,land and water managers, govern-ment representatives and othersare gathering in San Diego Novem-ber 13 – 17 for Third InternationalFire Ecology and ManagementCongress. One of the major issueson the agenda is the impact cli-mate change has already startedto have on wildfires in the West.

The San Diego Declaration onClimate Change and Fire Manage-ment is available online at http://emmps.wsu.edu/firecongress/.

An online version of the Science

article is available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/313/5789/940.pdf x

Clim ate Change and Wildfires:An Explosive, Murky MixClim ate Change and Wildfires:An Explosive, Murky Mix



a natural water cycle worthy of inspiring writers to extol its virtues.Yet despite this natural cleansingprocess, past and current activitiesin California’s forests have impairedmany of the state’s mountain lakes

and streams with sediment, nutri-ents, temperature and mercury.This issue of Th e California Runoff

Rundown focuses on some of themost significant sources of NPSpollution of one of California’smost important and still relativelypristine resources – forest water –and the increasing efforts to protectagainst future damage and clean upcontamination from the past.

The Legacy o f Mi nes

an d MercuryMost Californians are aware of mercury as a water pollutant be-cause of the well-publicized healthrisks associated with eating toomany mercury-laden fish. Whatmany people don’t realize is thatin California, the main source of

mercury contamination isn’t coal-fired power plants – it’s the GoldRush.

The Sierra Nevada gold minersused mercury to separate gold fromrock, gravel or soil, and since it wasin plentiful supply in the nearbyCoast Range, mercury mining there

Fores ted Wat ersheds

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Protecting this water supply isimportant in California, and acrossthe country. According to the U.S.Forest Service, 80 percent of the

nation’s freshwater resources origi-nate on forested lands, and as manyas 3,400 towns and cities across thecountry depend on national forestsystem watersheds for their publicwater supplies. In California, some65 percent of the state’s water supplyflows down from the Sierra Nevadaalone, with additional suppliesrunning off the Coast Range andKlamath Mountains. And while it isdifficult to place a precise economicvalue on this mountain water, a

1999 analysis conducted for theForest Service conservatively esti-mated the value of forest water usedin urban, agricultural and industrialsettings at $40 per acre foot, and thein-stream flow value for recreationand hydropower at $17 per acre foot.The total annual value of nationalforest land water was estimated at$3.7 billion.

“Water is by far the most valuablecommodity to come off of the forestin terms of a dollar value,” said

Gaylon Lee, forestry specialist withthe State Water Resources ControlBoard (State Board). “It exceedseverything else by a long shot.”

The economic value of this water,particularly in California and thearid West, will undoubtedly increasesignificantly in the coming yearsas residential and environmentaldemands for water claim more of agriculture’s share, and as the costof water rises in all sectors in re-sponse to increasing demand. Andas our understanding and awarenessof the cumulative impacts of pastand current activities in the forestcontinues to grow, so too are therestoration and protection effortsof water and land use managers.

California’s geologic past createdcoastal and inland mountain rangesand valleys, and a 1,340 mile oceanborder that combines with thestate’s plentiful sunshine to create

provided a key ingredient in thequest for gold. More than a centurylater, this mercury continues to be amajor, and very poorly understood,source of NPS pollution of forestwaters.

Thousands of abandoned minesites are scattered throughout theSierra Nevada and Coast ranges.No one knows how many and noone knows how much new mercurythese sites are adding to the watercourses each year. Stopping moremercury from entering the system,and cleaning up what is alreadythere, would be a monumentalundertaking. On a national level,Congress is holding hearings onhow to craft legislation to remove

some of the many legal obstaclesto abandoned mine clean up.

Some argue that because mostof the mercury from mining waswashed into streams years ago,limited resources should focusprimarily on mines with significantmercury loads or ones that have

been discovered by recreationalgold miners, said Rick Humphreys,abandoned mines coordinators atthe State Board.

Indeed, some 11 million poundsof mercury were “lost” during goldmining between 1848 and 1884,and that mercury is now either


Cache Creek carries mercury-laden sediment off t he Coast Range.




trapped in sediment on streambanks and bottoms or has beenreleased into the water column andis accumulating up the food chain.

“There’s so much mercury alreadyin the system that the top priority

should be addressing what wasdumped into creeks and rivers ahundred years ago,” said Humphreys.

The science of understandingmercury and how it moves andchanges as it travels in water is stillin its infancy. In fact, scientists onlyidentified mercury from mining asa water pollution problem a decadeago; even more recently theyrealized that as it moves throughthe water, a complex process canchange it from a relatively benign

substance (elemental mercury) intoa neurotoxin (methyl mercury) thatbuilds up or bioaccumulates in thefood chain.

“The mercury gets transportedfrom somewhere where it isn’tcausing a problem to somewherewhere it can,” said Humphreys.

One spot where conditions areoften ripe for the production of methyl mercury is the Delta, whereboth Coastal and Sierra streamsdeposit mercury-laden sediment

into the relatively warmer coastalwaters. The Delta is one of severalbodies of water in the state that areon Environmental ProtectionAgency’s 303(d) list for mercury,which requires the development of an action plan, called a Total Maxi-mum Daily Load (TMDL), to im-prove water quality.

In August, the San FranciscoRegional Water Quality ControlBoard adopted a Basin Plan amend-ment including a revised TMDL formercury in San Francisco Bay. TheTMDL is pending State Boardapproval. The State Board alsorecently approved a TMDL formercury in the Cache, Bear andSulphur creeks and Harley Gulch,all of which carry mercury-ladensediment off the Coast Range.

Information and updates onmercury in the Delta are availablethrough the Delta Tributaries

Mercury Council of the SacramentoRiver Watershed Program athttp://www.sacriver.org/subcommit-tees/index.php. For an in-depthdiscussion of mercury in the Delta,see CALFED’s report at http://

science.calwater.ca.gov/library.shtml.

Ti m ber Harves t i ng:P a st D a m a g e , Im p r o v e dPract icesAnother ghost of California’s pastthat continues to contribute to NPSpollution of forest water is thelegacy of aggressive, wholesalelogging that left hillsides bare andstreams clogged with sediment anddebris. “These legacy impacts, eveneight decades later, are still heavily

influencing the streams,” said Leeof the State Board.

Most water and forestry expertsagree that timber harvests todayare much less damaging to waterquality than they used to be, andthere is a general consensus thatthe most significant legacy andcontinuing impact from timberoperations are the thousands of miles of logging roads built afterWorld War II. Not everyone agrees,however, if today’s logging practices

adequately protect fragile forestecosystems and water quality.

Regu l a t ory Fram ew orkCharged with protecting water onnational forest land is the U.S.Forest Service. The State WaterBoard’s role in this management isoutlined in a Management Agency

Agreement (MAA) between the twoagencies, and “for the most part,”said Lee, “relations are smooth.”

Things aren’t quite so smoothwhen it comes to timber operationson state and private land. Some 20years ago, California amended itsForest Practice Rules and the StateBoard, the State Board of Forestryand Fire Protection (BOF) andCalifornia Department of Forestryand Fire Protection (CDF) alsosigned an MAA. Water quality

began to figure more prominentlyin (CDF-issued) Timber HarvestPlans (THPs) at that point, althoughrelations between the agenciesremained rocky.

In 1999 and 2004, the stateLegislature mandated more rigorousregulatory controls for all potentialwaste discharges into the state’swaters and in 2003, it grantedRegional Water Quality ControlBoards (Regional Boards) the author-ity to essentially veto nonfederal

timber operations that might furtherimpact already-impaired waters.The timber industry challengedthis ruling, and in 2005, the StateSupreme Court upheld the RegionalBoards’ authority. Today, timberharvests on state or private lands

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE




must be both approved by CDF andseparately regulated by a RegionalBoard.

The fact that the Regional Boardsnow have authority to regulatetimber operations is a “step in the

right direction” in balancing theobjectives of state forest policy andwater policy, said Lee, “but there isstill far more dissatisfaction withtimber operations on non-federallands than on federal lands.” TheState Board and the BOF are work-ing toward drafting a joint policystatement that seeks to balance theagencies’ respective mandates forenvironmental protection.

The North Coast Regional Boardhas also recently adopted a new

strategy for minimizing NPS pollu-tion during and after timber har-vests: the Watershed Wide Waste

us away from the THP by THPapproach and into more of a water-shed perspective.”

Tim ber Harvest s Stan dardsCo n t i n u e t o Im p r o v e

As the regulatory framework forwater quality and timber harvestscontinues to evolve and improve, sotoo do timber harvesting practices.In the past, loggers dragged treesacross the forest floor with tractors,swept logs downstream by releasingwater from “splash dams” and felledstreamside trees. “It was an era of extremely heavy impact on streamsand water quality in the forests,”Lee said.

The 1973 California Forest

Practice Act was the beginning of the end of that era, and today, mostlogging practices are much less

roads – built mostly for logging andmining – wind through the forest.That’s four times more miles of roadthan all of the state’s highwayscombined.

In addition to sheer magnitude,

roads constructed before the mid-1980s were often built too close tostreams, without road surfacing,such as pavement or gravel, andwith slopes that send water downthe adjacent unprotected hillsideand into gullies that carry water,and sediment, directly into foreststreams. Stream crossings also wereoften poorly constructed in the past,with culverts that were too small tohandle runoff from a major storm.

Although it may seem like an

insurmountable challenge to im-prove and maintain tens of thou-sands of miles of poorly constructed

Old, rutted roads send storm water directly into streams. New road designs th at protect forest w ater quality slope outward

with rolling dips sending dispersed runoff to t he forest floor.

Discharge Requirement (WWWDR).Using these discharge requirementsas a guide, Regional Boards canevaluate the cumulative impacts of timber harvests from a watershedperspective.

“This process is more ecologicallysignificant and deals with the waterand sediment interactions andprocesses,” said Robert Klamt,environmental program managerfor the North Coast Regional BoardTimber Harvest Division. “It gets

damaging. One legacy of loggingthat can’t be easily changed, how-ever, is roads, and the sedimentthat runs off these old surfaces.

The Legacy o f RoadsThe number one cause of NPSpollution in the forests, far andabove everything else, are the roadsystems, said Chris Knopp, deputydirector for ecosystem conservationwith the Forest Service. On publiclands alone, some 50,000 miles of

roads, experts say it is crucial toprotecting water quality in theforest. Limiting the use of the roadswhen it is raining, repairing streamcrossings, limiting new constructionand decommissioning unnecessaryexisting roads would all help reduceNPS pollution.

Bill Weaver, a geologist withPacific Watershed Associates inArcata, Calif., and author of the Handbook for Forest and Ran ch Roads,said one of the top priorities for



CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE


reducing sediment runoff fromforest roads “is to hydrologicallydisconnect road systems fromstream channels.”

“On average, in 100 miles of typical forest road, about half is

plumbed directly into streams,”he said.For example, a road that slopes

inward (an insloped road) causeswater and eroded sediment to runoff the road surface and into theroadside ditch where it then collectsand travels to the nearest culvertand is dumped into a nearbystream. In the past, this was actuallythe preferred engineering designfor collecting and discharging roadrunoff, said Weaver. Today, new

roads are built and old roads im-proved by building into the roadfrequent rolling dips and by addingditch relief culverts or outwardslopes to road surfaces. More than80 percent of sediment and runoff delivery to streams can be elimi-nated by adding these elements toforest roads, said Weaver. “It is areasonably inexpensive and costeffective way to immediately cut off fine sediment from entering thestream system.”

Unfortunately, he said, fundingfor such repairs on old roads “isnot even close to adequate.”

“We’re just slowly chipping awayat the problem,” he said.

Scott Greacen of the Environ-mental Protection InformationCenter (EPIC) in Garberville, Calif.,said his organization is advocatingfor forest management policies thatbase road building and maintenanceplans on quantifiable parametersof how many miles of road a water-shed can handle before it becomessediment impaired.

Establishing road construction,road maintenance and road closingpolicies based on “miles of road persquare mile of watershed” param-eters would help policy makersestablish a systematic process tobegin to reduce the negative im-pacts of forest roads on waterquality. For example, said Greacen,

in a watershed that already hasthree to six miles of roads persquare mile of forest, new roadconstruction would not be allowed.

“Roads are better constructedtoday than they used to be, but theystill have tremendous impacts, andthe legacy of an already-roadedlandscape, is a major, major prob-lem,” he said.

Clea r Cu ts: Can Th ey BeSus t a i nab l e?Second only to roads in contribut-ing to NPS pollution in the forest ispollution that runs off of clear cuts.Some argue, however, that clear-cutor “even-aged” harvests, when donecorrectly, can return a second-growth forest to a natural conditionthat helps maintain a healthywatershed.

Thomas Lisle, research hydrologistat the Pacific Southwest ResearchStation in Arcata, Calif., studies theimpact of timber harvesting practiceson water quality in the Casper CreekWatershed, an experimental water-shed managed by the U.S. ForestService and the CDF.

What researchers there havelearned is that there’s no gettingaround the fact that harvestingtimber damages water quality.

Both clear cuts and selective har-vesting contribute to temperatureand sediment pollution, he said,and streams running throughforests that are clear cut are atparticular risk for sediment pollu-tion during major storm events.Storm water erosion is especially aproblem on the North Coast wheresoils are highly erosive.

“The trees’ roots help hold thesoils together on steep slopes, andthey (the slopes) are more prone tolandslides and debris flows whenthe trees are gone,” said Lisle.

Mark Neely, an engineeringgeologist with the timber harvestdivision of the North Coast Re-gional Board, agrees.

“There is still a lot of clear cutting(on the North Coast) and that runsthe biggest risk to water qualityfrom landslides and temperatureincreases,” he said. “There are nopros to clear cutting in terms of water quality. It would be better if we didn’t clear cut.”

Still, he and other water qualityexperts say that clear cutting tech-niques used today are much lessdamaging to water quality thanthose used in the past.

Tim Feller, Sierra Pacific Industries

Managed growth from an even-aged timber harvest.



CONTINUED ON PAGE 13


district manager and a registeredprofessional forester, said that hiscompany’s 100-year, even-aged

harvest strategy protects water qualityand promotes a healthy forest eco-system. Here’s how it works:

Sierra Pacific divides the areato be harvested into 10,000-acresections, clear cutting 10 percentor 1,000 non-adjacent acres eachdecade. After each harvest, thecompany plants a diversity of speciesthat replicates how the forest wouldgrow naturally in that area. At theend of a 20-year period, trees plantedon the acres that were harvested in

the first decade (10 percent of thetotal forest) will be 20 years old, andtrees planted in the area harvested inthe second decade will be 10 yearsold. After 10 decades of even-agedtimber harvesting using this strategy,a 10,000-acre watershed wouldcontain a natural diversity of species,from saplings to 100-year-old trees.

“The key is to get yourself to apoint where you have a nice distri-bution of habitat types,” said Feller.“This can be a practice that goeson for centuries.”

Some argue that the cumulativeeffects of roads and past, damaginglogging practices necessitate morestringent forest harvest rules thateliminate all clear cuts.

“The negative impacts of clearcutting, especially down to the edgeof a water course under old stan-dards, are difficult to exaggerate,”said EPIC’s Greacen. “You can’t get

much worse unless you are talkingabout hydraulic mining where(miners) were literally ripping the

mountainside down with a firehose.” He said that California’sforested ecosystems have beenrendered so fragile from past prac-tices, that even “sustainable”strategies like those practiced bySierra Pacific cause more damagethan the system can handle.

And California’s forest lands arenow under a new, rapidly growingthreat: motorized recreation.

Gr o w i n g I m p a c t o f

Recreat ion on Fores tWater Qua l i tyThe U.S. Forest Service has identi-fied off road or off highway vehicles(OHVs) as one of the top fourthreats to forests and grasslands inthe United States. Nowhere is thisthreat more prevalent than in themountains and deserts of Califor-nia, where improper OHV use leadsto NPS pollution.

Environmental and OHV organi-zations, as well as governmentagencies, are working to reduce theimpact of OHVs on forest waterquality by identifying appropriateroutes, educating riders and closingpoorly designed trails.

Currently, thousands of miles of poorly designed or unauthorizedtrails pass near or sometimes directlyover streams and rivers and throughlakes and wet meadows, causingstream bank erosion, increasing

nutrient loads and turbidity, anddestroying riparian vegetation. Otherroutes cut channels and gullies ontothe forest floor and when it rains,water that flows through theseunnatural water courses gains speed,

changing the quantity and qualityof surface runoff.Russ Ehnes, executive director of

the National Off–Highway VehicleConservation Council, said waterquality is one of his organization’s“primary concerns” when it comesto OHV management.

“Properly designed trails arecrucial to maintaining water qual-ity,” he said. Such trails have mini-mal stream crossings, stay awayfrom riparian areas and drain so

that water can’t travel long dis-tances and directly into streams.

Perhaps most significant in termsof water quality impairment is thesimple fact that motorized recre-ation in the forest has become sopopular. In the national forestalone, the number of OHV usersgrew from 5 million annually in1972 to 36 million in 2000. By2004, that number had grown tomore 50 million.

In response to this explosion and

the plethora of unauthorized newtrails and poorly designed oldroutes, California is in the processof designating official OHV routesin its 18 national forests. The goal isto establish a legal system of routesthat protect water quality, soils,vegetation and wildlife habitat, andminimize contact between motor-ized and non-motorized recreation.

“The purpose of the route desig-nation is to continue the use of off road vehicles on national forestland but to do it in a way that isnot harmful to water quality,” saidKnopp of the Forest Service. “Mostoff road vehicle users understandthe dilemma of leaving thingsundesignated. Without it, theywon’t be able to have any off roadvehicle use whatsoever.”

Most of California’s nationalforest regions have completed the

Lee Vining Creek

carries forest water

from the Eastern

Sierra to Mono Lake.



E

PA recently issued a draft National Management Measures

to Control Nonpoint Source

Pollution from Hydromodif ication, tohelp states, agencies and organiza-tions reduce nonpoint sourcepollution from stream channeliza-tion and channel modification,dams, and streambank and shore-line erosion.

These activities, known collec-tively as hydrologic modification orhydromodification, disturb thenatural flow patterns of surface water

waterways as natural filters. Basedon the new data, planners mayadopt policies to limit runoff fromlawns. The research revealed thatnitrogen – the primary ingredient inlawn fertilizer – is part of what

makes Tahoe’s water murky.Erosion and air pollution alsoplay a major role, and together,these fine particles and nutrientsfuel algae growth, causing the Lake’sclarity to plummet. A 35 percentreduction overall would clear thingsup.

University of California, Davisscientists have been monitoring theLake’s clarity since 1968. The Lakeused to be clear to more than 100feet. Today, the water becomes

murky at about 70 feet.“It’s exciting to have the knowl-

edge that it’s possible to restore LakeTahoe’s water clarity to historiclevels within our lifetime,” said John Singlaub, executive director of the TRPA. “We’ll have many toughdecisions to make about how toachieve the goal, but to know it’sscientifically possible is a break-through.”

The water quality restorationplan for Lake Tahoe is part of

Pathway 2007. To read the plan orfor more information on the TMDLsee www.pathway2007.org. x

Reducing Runoff Will HelpMake Tahoe Clear Again

U

sing data from a computermodel that simulates LakeTahoe’s response to various

combinations of pollution, research-ers have determined that a 35percent reduction in nitrogen,phosphorus and fine sedimentrunoff into the lake could makeTahoe clear again.

The Lahontan Regional WaterQuality Control Board and otherswill use the new data to devisestrategies to reduce nonpoint sourceand other pollution of the water.The Lahontan Board is working on aTMDL for Lake Tahoe, and it also isworking with the Forest Service andTahoe Regional Planning Agency(TRPA) to develop strategies toimprove the Lake’s water qualityand clarity.

The Lake Tahoe Clarity Model ispart of a joint California-Nevadaeffort to establish allowable levels of pollutants to meet water qualitystandards in Lake Tahoe under thefederal Clean Water Act. In July, the

Lahontan Board announced thelatest pollution reduction findings.

So far, most pollution reduction

efforts have focused on runoff fromconstruction and traffic, as well ason restoring nearby wetlands and


UC Davis Tahoe Environm ental ResearchCenter scient ist Brant Allen dem on-

strates how a white Secchi disc is used to

m easure lake clarity. June 18 200 2.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 10

and groundwater, often contributingto NPS pollution. According to EPA,hydromodification is one of theleading sources of impairment in ournation’s waters, and is second onlyto agriculture as a pollution source ofstreams, lakes, ponds and reservoirs.

The document includes manage-ment practices and techniques thatEPA considers effective for reducingthe negative impacts to waterquality from hydromodificationactivities such as dredging and snag

Reducin g Dam age to WaterQuality from Hydromodification

Reducing Runoff Will HelpMake Tahoe Clear Again



Coastal ContaminationContributes to RisingHealthcare Costs

NPS News

Reducing storm water andother polluted runoff incoastal southern California

could save the state millions of

million cases of diarrhea, vomitingand other related symptoms arecaused by swimming at southernCalifornia beaches.

Healthcare costs from theseillnesses may be as high as $414

million annually, according to theresearch.University of California, Los

Angeles, and Stanford Universityscientists entered beach attendanceand fecal coliform densities datainto two epidemiological modelsand used the results to estimate therisk of contracting a GI illness fromswimming in the ocean in LosAngeles and Orange counties.

The study, which includes datafor individual beaches, concludes

that water quality improvements inthe region could have substantialpublic health benefits. Data onindividual beaches includes:

• Doheny, Malibu, Marina delRey, Cabrillo and Las Tunashad the worst water quality.Newport, Hermosa, AbaloneCove, Manhattan, Torranceand Bolsa Chica are thecleanest.

• The three beaches with thelowest incidence of gastrointes

tinal illness due to fewervisitors were San Clemente’scity beach, Nichols Canyonand Las Tunas.

• Storm water runoff is the chiefcause of dirty ocean water insouthern California andcleaning it up would prevent394,000 to 804,000 gas-trointestinal cases and save$13 million to $28 million inannual health costs in LosAngeles County alone.

In August, the Natural ResourcesDefense Council filed a lawsuitagainst EPA for failing to adopttougher water quality standards toprotect beachgoers from waterborneillnesses.

The Environm ental Science and

Technology article can be down-loaded at http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/pdf/es060679s.pdf x

1 0 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN FALL 2006

dollars in healthcare costs, accord-ing to a new study published inAugust in the journal Environmental

Science and Technology. Up to 1.5

removal, stream straightening orrelocation, channelization andconstruction on or along streams.Water quality impairments causedby dams and impoundments is alsoaddressed in the draft report.

EPA requested comments on thedraft and is now in the process of reviewing them and finalizing thepublication. Staff expected signifi-

cant public comment on stream-bank and shoreline erosion issues,as well as on the dam section, andin particular, on the increasinglydebated issue of dam removal. EPAplans to issue a final version of the

publication in January.The draft document is availablefor download or order at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html x



NPS News

FALL2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 1 1

velop regional strategies formanaging water resources. Theprocess began in 2002 underProposition 50, the Water Secu-rity, Clean Drinking Water,Coastal and Beach Protection Act.Since then, diverse water interestshave formed coalitions through-out the state to develop plans forsolving water quality, environ-mental and water supply chal-lenges in their watersheds.

“It’s exciting to see that thewater community is starting tocoordinate with land managers tolook at long-term water supply

State Funding EncouragesRegional Focus

In November, the State WaterResources Control Board (StateBoard) and Department of Water

Resources (DWR) will announce$150 million in grants to selectedregional watershed groups to beginimplementing Integrated RegionalWatershed Management Plans(IRWMPs). DWR and the StateBoard expect to hold a secondcompetition for an additional $150million in implementation fundingin 2007.

In 2005, DWR and the StateBoard awarded 33 groups $14.7million in planning funds to de-

issues and to really incorporatewatershed-wide water protectionmeasures into their planning,” said Jason Rainey of the South YubaRiver Citizens League.

Rainey’s organization is partici-

pating in the Consumnes, Ameri-can, Bear and Yuba watersheds(CABY) group. CABY is one of 33coalitions that received a planninggrant to develop new or updateexisting integrated watershed plans.Some 85 local governments, wateragencies, power companies, tribes,farmers, and conservation andrecreation organizations are partici-pating in the CABY planningprocess.

Proposition 50 funding is part of

the state’s efforts to encourage andsupport regional efforts to tacklecomplex water problems specific toeach region. Early in the IRWMPplanning stage in the Sacramentoregion, representatives from CABYorganizations realized they neededtheir own IRWMP.

“Once you get into the foothillsand mountains, you are dealingwith very different resource issues,especially for water quality andwater supply,” said Liz Manfield,

director of CABY and watershedmanager for the El Dorado Irriga-tion District. The regional planningprocess encourages water and landuse organizations to focus on theseunique issues. In the foothill andSierra regions, CABY is developing aplan to address the legacy of miningand logging operations, the dra-matic increase in recreation anddevelopment, wildfires and theimpact of climate change on bothfire and precipitation patterns.

The IRWMP is a “very good,collaborative process,” said Mansfield“People are very engaged andpeople are very serious about this.”

More information on the regionaplanning and implementationprocess and funding is available athttp://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/grants/integregio.cfm or http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/funding/irwmgp/index.html x

CABY’s IRW MP includes

strategies to protect the

Yuba River Wat ershed.



San Fran ci sco Bay (Regio n 2 )Regional Board approved June 14 a TMDL for p a t h o g e n s i n t h e

Son om a Creek WatershedContact: Tina Low, 510/622-5682; link to staff report at:www.w aterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/Agenda/0 6-14 -06/

SonomaAppC.pdf

Cen tral Coas t (Region 3)Regional Board approved July 7 a TMDL for n u t r i e n t s a n d d i s so l v e d

oxy gen for Cho rro Creek

Contact: Chris Rose, 805/542/4770; link to staff report at:www.w aterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/Board/Agendas/070 706 /Item9 /

documents/Item9StaffReport.pdf

Los Ang eles (Region 4)Regional Board approved July 13 a TMDL for m e t a l s a n d s e l e n i u m

i n t he San Gabr i e l R iver

Contact: Jenny Newman, 213/576/6691; link to staff report at:www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/h tm l/bpaRes/bpa_td/ 48 _New/

SGR%20Metals_Final%20Staff%20Report.pdf

Regional Board approved June 8 a TMDL for m e t a ls in t h e

Cal leg ua s Creek Wat ershed

Contact: Thanhloan Nguyen, 213/576/6690; link to staff report at:www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/h tm l/bpaRes/bpa_td/ 44 _New/

06_0602/07%20Staff%20Report.pdf

Regional Board approved June 8 a TMDL for b a c t e r ia i n B a l lo n a

Creek , B a l l ona Es tuary , and Sepul ved a Cha nn e l

Contact: Ginachi I. Amah, 213/576/6685; link to staff report at:www.w aterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/htm l/bpaRes/bpa_td/20 06-01 1/

Final%20TMDL%20Staff%20Report.pdf

Cen tral Val ley (Region 5)Regional Board approved June 22 a TMDL for d i a zi n o n a n d

chl orpy r i fos i n the Sacram ent o-San Joaqu i n De l ta

Contact: Danny McClure, 916/464/4751; link to staff report at:www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/tentative/0606/delta-dc/delta-dc-

staff-rpt.pdf

Regional Water Board approved June 22 a TMDL for n u t r i e n t s in

Clear Lak e

Contact: Lori Webber, 916/464/4745; link to staff report at:

www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/tentative/0606/clearlake-bpa/cl-staff-rpt.pdf

San t a Ana ( Reg i on 8 )Regional Board approved April 21 a dry season TMDL for n u t r i e n t s

i n B i g B ear Lak e

Contact: Heather Boyd, 951-320-2006; link to staff report at:www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/pdf/tmdl/bigbear/03-

06%20Final%20staff%20report.pdf


The Central Valley RegionalWater Quality Control Boardextended its agricultural

waiver program in June for anotherfive years, but added the require-ment that each coalition submit itslist of individual participantsannually.

Growers have until the end of theyear to join a coalition and partici-pate in the waiver program. Theconditional waiver requires partici-pants to monitor tailwater, wastewater and storm water discharges forsediment, pesticides, nutrients andother contaminants.

The participant list requirementwas opposed by the regulatedcommunity because of concernsthat the list will make it possible for

Ag WaiverUpdate:Central ValleyRequires

ParticipantList



Fores ted Watershed s

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 8


route mapping process; the nextstep is to decide which roads andtrails to permanently designate forOHV use, and which ones to close.

The process includes public inputand expert evaluation.In addition to the route designa-

tion process, other OHV organiza-tions are working to educate theirmembers about sustainable motor-ized recreation in the forest.Tread Lightly offers “Tread Trainer”programs across the country totrain individuals “in innovative,practical methods of spreadingoutdoor ethics to the public witha curriculum specifically focused

on motorized and mechanizedrecreation.”

Since 2003, 981 volunteers havebeen trained through the TreadTrainer program and those volun-teers have reached more than 40,000outdoor enthusiasts. Included inTread Lightly’s educational literatureare OHV driving tips designed toprotect water quality, including:cross streams only at designatedfording points or where the roadcrosses the stream; avoid riding in

mud; don’t ride in meadows ormarshy areas; and straddle ruts,gullies and washouts.

Tread Lightly also raises fundsand organizes volunteers to work incollaboration with public agencieson trail repair and bridge construc-tion through a program called“Restoration for Recreation.” Since1997, it has provided funding for atleast 15 major projects throughoutthe United States and generatedthousands of volunteer hours.

In California, local watershedgroups are working to make surethat water quality is protected bythe new trail system in the nationalforest. The South Yuba River Citi-zens League in Nevada City held apublic meeting in August on theOHV route designation process andcreated what it calls a citizen’s “softrecreation committee.” The com-mittee will provide input to the

road designation process in theTahoe National Forest and “advo-cate for recreational uses that arecompatible with maintaining waterquality and ecological health.”

Jason Rainey, the Citizens

League’s executive director, said theTahoe Forest is one of California’smost popular areas for OHV recre-ation, in part because of its closeproximity to Sacramento and theBay Area.

“It’s a straight shot up here fora lot of folks on I-80,” said Rainey.“The forest is being loved to death.”

For more information or tofind out how to participate inCalifornia’s Route Designationprogram, see http://www.fs.fed.us/

r5/routedesignation/index.shtml.For information on Tread Lightlyprograms, see http://www.treadlightly.org/.

S u m m a r yThe legacy impacts from historic

mining and logging of California’sresource-rich mountains and foot-hills will undoubtedly continue toplague the state’s forest land watersinto the foreseeable future. Cleanup and monitoring efforts are

underway and resource extractionpractices on California’s forest landsare increasingly designed to protectwater quality and minimize ecosys-tem damage. But the sediment,mercury and other NPS pollutantsfrom historic logging and mining,combined with new, mountingchallenges from motorized vehiclerecreation and more frequent,intense wildfires means that pro-tecting California’s forested water-sheds will continue to be a one of the state’s most significant naturalresource challenges.

Forest land waters are “the heartsof our forested ecosystems,” saidEPIC’s Greacen. “We need to prac-tice forestry in a way that bringsback the characteristics of an olderforest – forests with big trees, lotsof shade and substantial soil. That’sthe type of forest that gives youclear, clean cold water.” x

environmental organizations totarget individual growers withwater pollution lawsuits. Environ-mentalists and rural residentshave expressed concern that thewaiver program doesn’t stopirrigated agricultural runoff fromcontaminating the water supply.

Farmers irrigate nearly 10million acres of cropland in thestate, using some 35 million acre-

feet of water each year, andagricultural runoff is a significantsource of nonpoint source pollu-tion.

The Central Valley’s IrrigatedLands Discharge Waiver wasparticularly contentious, and theRegional Board debated forseveral hours before a majorityvoted in support of extending thewaiver.

The Central Coast (Region 3),Central Valley (Region 5) and LosAngeles (Region 4) regionalboards have all adopted condi-tional waivers for wastewaterdischarges from irrigated agricul-ture. The other five RegionalBoards have no immediate plansto adopt agricultural waivers.Some officials speculate that theseboards will adopt waivers as theywork to implement TMDLs intheir regions. x




NPS Pollution

From Lawns BY K ATHERINE N OBLE-GOODMAN

Throughout the state, waterproviders have launchedoutreach programs, adopted

tiered rate structures and offeredrebates to encourage customers toconserve water, both indoors andout. Now, some outdoor water use

campaigns are beginning to focuson water quality issues, as well.

A typical suburban lot generatesmore than three times as muchrunoff as a wooded area of equalsize, and what Americans put onthese green spaces – water, fertilizer,pesticides and herbicides – eitherseeps into the ground or runs off asnonpoint source pollution.

A recent U.S. Geological Surveyanalysis of 20 major river basinsacross the nation found common

lawn and garden pesticides in bothsurface and groundwater. Notsurprising, considering that accord-

ing to EPA estimates, Americans putmore than 100 million pounds of chemicals on their lawns each year.

“Many people apply fertilizersand pesticides as a ‘routine practice’when lawns and landscapes don’tneed it,” said Karl Kurka, assistant

director of the California UrbanWater Conservation Council.“Pesticides should only be usedwhen a pest is actually present andcausing problems.” Residentsshould exercise similar cautionwith fertilizer, he said. “If you dofertilize, use fertilizer with ‘slowrelease’ nitrogen and apply thecorrect amount.”

It’s not only chemicals thatcontribute to nonpoint sourcepollution, however. Watering too

much does, as well. For example,when residents don’t turn off theirsprinklers when it rains, lawns

become saturated and run off increases, carrying with it sedi-ments, nutrients, salts and otherpollutants.

“Over irrigation of lawns andlandscapes carries pollutants into

streams, rivers and groundwater,”said Kurka. “If people would just cutback on irrigation to what theirlandscapes actually need, thisproblem could be eliminated.”

For a perspective on the signifi-cance of lawns to the nation’slandscape and the potential impactgrowing all this turf has on waterquality, NASA Earth System re-searchers recently calculated thetotal acres of lawn in the country.They discovered that lawns cover

more land than any other singleirrigated crop in the United States,or some 40 million acres. And thesuburban landscape, where mostlawns are grown, is expanding.

According to California’s Farm-land Mapping and MonitoringProgram, suburban land grew by92,750 acres in 2002. What’s more,most of this growth occurred inland,where residents tend to have largelawns that need a lot of water andfertilizer to stay lush and green in

the hot, dry inland climate.Of the 11 million new residents

expected in California by 2030, halfwill live in these inland regionsaccording to a July 2006 report by thePublic Policy Institute of California.

Recognizing these trends and thelink between water conservationand water quality and nonpointsource pollution, agencies andnonprofit organizations are begin-ning to encourage residents todesign and care for their landscapeswith water quality in mind.

In San Diego, Project Clean Waterhosts a web page devoted to educat-ing the public about the how lawnpesticides and fertilizers contributeto nonpoint source pollution. Theorganization’s Healthy Garden –Healthy Home webpage includesprintable tip cards to guide residentsin adopting strategies to “protectyour children, your pets, and your

NPS Pollution

From Lawns



watershed.” http://www.projectcleanwater.org/html/ipm.html

In Los Angeles, the MetropolitanWater District of SouthernCalifornia’s California Friendlycampaign encourages residents to

plant both native California andother drought-tolerant plants, inpart because these plants thrive innutrient poor soil. That means thatfor the most part, fertilizer is unnec-essary.

Nationally, organizations such asthe Audubon Society (http://www.audubon.org/bird/at_home/reduce_pesticides.html) and theNational Wildlife Federation (http://www.nwf.org/backyard/) encourageresidents to consider water quality

and watershed health when theydecide what type of landscape toplant and how to care for it, andEPA’s Nonpoint Source PollutionPointer (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts/point10.htm) encourageshomeowners to consider plantingCalifornia native plants in theiryards.

On the policy level, the Califor-nia Urban Water ConservationCouncil recently published therecommendations of a state-ap-pointed Landscape Taskforcecharged with recommending how


California can improve its water useefficiency in new and existing urbanirrigated landscapes. W ater Smart

Landscapes for California includes afocus on nonpoint source pollution.

“Runoff and groundwater perco-lation from excessive and inefficient

landscape irrigation is one of thelargest sources of urban nonpointsource pollution and watersheddegradation,” states the report.“Improving landscape irrigationefficiency not only reduces water

consumption but also reduces urbannonpoint source pollution.”

Submitted to the governor andLegislature in January, the TaskForce recommended that state waterpolicy should prohibit excessivelandscape irrigation that leads tourban runoff and encourage thecapture and retention of stormwater onsite to improve water useefficiency and reduce water quality

problems.For garden tutorials, landscape

designs, plant lists and other re-sources to help reduce residentialwater use and improve water qualityby planting a California FriendlyLandscape, visit http://www.bewaterwise.com. For books devoted tonon-turf landscapes with informa-tion on water quality and residentialirrigation, see “How to Get YourLawn off Grass,” by Carole Rubinand “Requiem for a Lawn Mower,”by Sally Wasowski.

Nurseries that focus on residentiallandscapes that protect water qualityinclude Las Pilitas Nursery (http://www.laspilitas.com/) with locationsin Santa Margarita and Escondido,North Coast Native Nursery inPetaluma (http://www.northcoastnativenursery.com) and the TheodorePayne Foundation (http://www.theodorepayne.org/) in Sun Valley. x

Native California landscapes

reduce urban runoff and

protect water quality.



If you w ould like t o receive this

newslett er electronically, please

send your ema il add ress to:

[email protected]

Share Your Success

Have an interesting story to tell about your nonpoint

source pollution control or stormwater program?

Why not share your experience with others through

The Runoff Rundown? One of the goals of The Runoff Rundown is

to be a forum for sharing ideas that have successfully reduced

nonpoint source or urban runoff. These can be programs or

policies initiated by cities, local and regional agencies, regional

water boards, or in the private sector. To share your story,

contact Katherine Noble-Goodman, Water Education

Foundation, at (916) 444-6240, or send e-mail to

knoblegoodman@wat ereducation.org.

717 K Street, Suite 317Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6240Fax: (916) 448-7699www.watereducation.org

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

Non-Profit O rganization

U.S. Postage

PAIDSacramento, CA

Permit No. 430

Documents

Fall 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter