APPENDIX B

I ~::~~\( --<," :~; ,"r'.~(r"

-;'""'.~. 0.1 , ..~ ~ .I " ;1-;;- -~, , ,-~.\I' 1();-'?rl, , .'ate~ ~ .(

~ ~We.IZ. -.\A. I -~.\-~"k, \1~c I (" d .':""'-0 - ' -~ Z r.r;.i;lJI :..r~ .~ t4e :;r1ttlt'Ze ~ :~(~. : ..r~1~~~:,~Ji~+~z

k~.~I.~ .~:";'~; ,-;~9;..r

9~/~~ ~ ;~"' \'. , ~~~ rr ..-r ~.'A- O I 77'.~ .:J"~~;.~ .:,! ~, I-~ : ~ UP- -..; , ~;;, ~,. o I'! ,-.. , ,

:'...~:~.i :,:~...,1 '.;j4J~,;,..~ ~..!;:f"

Staff at the North Coast Regional Water

Quality Control Board (Regional WaterBoard) have written a work plan to calculatea "TMDL " (Total Maximwn Daily Load)

for sediment in the Noyo River watershed.The TMDL will serve as the basis for a legalprogram designed to encourage landownersto reduce the impact of erosion from theirproperties on the cold water fishery .Inparticular, the Regional Water Board iscc:lcemed about t..'Ie impact of erosion oncoho salmon and steelhead trout.

be included in the TMDL calculation toaccount for the uncertainties.

Data from industrial timber

companies, public facilities, otherlandowners, environmental organizations,community groups, academic institutionsand others are requested. Any studies ofsedimentation in the basin, sediment budgetsor watershed assessments would beparticularly helpful. The data most useful tothe development of a TMDL for the NoyoRiver watershed includes, but is not limitedto, the following.

.

.

"Without good data, margins

of safety must be included in

the .TMDL calculation to

account for the uncertainties."

Precipitation and stream flowLocation and volume of drinking waterintakes/riparian wellsStream channel slope and otherindicators of stream channel sediment

transport ability

.

To calculate a TI\mL. certain datainputs are required. F or example. one musthave an understanding of: 1) the currentsediment delivery rates from locations allthroughout the watershed and 2) sedimentdelivery rates under which cold water fishcan successful reproduce and grow tomaturity .With this. one can assign asediment load allocation to all non-pointsource dischargers. such as timberlandowners, ranchers. and public road operators.Without good data., margins of safety must

See Data Request. Page 2

Data RequestContinuedfrom Page 1

.

The Noyo River watershed oncesupported a significant cold water fisherywhich is now substantially reduced. Thereduction of the cold water fishery hascaused significant public concern, includingthe concern of various resource protectionagencies. For example, in 1997, theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)listed coho salmon under the EndangeredSpecies Act as a threatened species along thenorth coast of California. NMFS is currentlyconsidering the listing of steelhead trout, aswell. These listings result from theobservation of substantial declines insalmonid populations overtime.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

."The Noyo River watershed

once supported a significant

cold water fishery which is now

substantially reduced."

Stream channel substrate compositionand qualityAir photo histories of landslides, riparianshade, fish passage barriers, etc.Cold water fish habitat types anddistributionLocation and cause of instream barriersto fish passageFish population composition anddistributionStream water chemistryLocation and quality of riparian shadeVolume and location of large woodydebrisAssessment of road network, includingroad types and road densitiesSediment production rates for bothhuman-related and natural sources ofsedimentVolume and location of instream storedsedimentRate of suspended sediment and bedloadstream discharge

.

As described in the Regional WaterBoard work plan. staff will: 1) create a database of existing data, 2) conduct technicalanalyses, 3) produce a technical reportwhich assess the existing data, 4) calculatethe total maximum daily load of sedimentand 5) conduct outreach activities. Thework plan can be obtained by calling (707)576-2220. Questions regarding the workplan and data request can be directed toAlydda Mangelsdorf at (707) 576-2030 ormanga@rb 1.swrcb.ca.gov .

In addition, the Regional WaterBoard and the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EP A) listed the NoyoRiver watershed as an impaired waterbodydue to sedimentation. The cold waterfishery is identified as a "beneficial use" ofmany of the north coast watersheds.Preliminary investigation into the cause ofthe salmonid population decline hasuncovered channel alteration as one of manypotentially influential factors. Spawningand rearing habitat has been disturbed bysedimentation, including both increases in

See Sedimentation, Page 3

2

Sedimentation

Continued from Page 2

sediment delivery and a reduction in theinstream channel structure necessary toslowly meter out instream sediment.

In 1972, Congress passed the CleanWater Act-- a federal law designed toprotect water quality for human andenvironmental uses. Congress stated its goalby saying: "The objective of the (CleanWater ) Act is to restore and maintain thechemical, physical and biological integrityof the Nation's waters."

Finally, the EP A was sued by aconsortium of fisher and environmentalgroups who argued that EP A was movingtoo slowly to ensure that TMDLs weredeveloped to control sedimentation,temperature and nutrient impaimlents on thenorth coast, as required under the CleanWater Act. In a settlement of the lawsuit,EP A agreed to a court-administeredschedule for the development of TMDLsalong the north coast. According to theschedule, the TMDL for sediment in theNoyo River watershed must be completedby December 1999. A draft TMDL shouldbe developed by July 1999 to allowenoughtime for its completion.

To this end, a program was designedby which the Nation's waters are to beassessed for their chemical, physical and

biological integrity .Waters which aredetern1ined to be impaired are prioritized formore detailed assessment andrestorati o 111 mi ti gati o n.

" A TMDL is a mathematical

calculation ,vhich describes the

total amount of a pollutant which

a waterbody can withstand

before it is no longer able to

support its 'beneficial uses."'

For these reasons and others, a publicfocus on the issue of sedimentation in theNoyo River is called for, including theimpleme.ntation of the Regional WaterBoard's work plan for the calculation of aTMDL. Such focus is necessary not only tomore accurately assess the existingconditions in the watershed; but, to assessthe impacts of current land managementpractices, as well. The process of calculatinga TMDL provides a framework fordeveloping a comprehensive understandingof environmental and management issues

confronting landowners and cold water fishwith respect to sedimentation in the NoyoRiver .

EP A has written federal regulationswhich describe this program-- known as theTMDL program-- in greater detail. Theacronym "TMDL " stands for "Total

Maximum Daily Load." A legal descriptionof the program can be found in Section303(d) of the Clean Water Act and Section40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part130.7.

See TMDL, Page 4

3

TMDL

Continued .from Page 3

In general, a TMDL is a

mathematical calculation which describesthe total amount of a pollutant which a

waterbody can withstand before it is no

longer able to suppon its "beneficial uses."

"Beneficial uses" might include such things

as a cold water fishery or drinking water

supplies.

The TMDL calculation mustconsider pollutant contributions from pointsources (such as sewage treatment plants orindustrial facilities), non point sources (suchas stormwater runoff) and natural sources.The primary sediment sources of concern inthe Noyo River watershed are roads, loggingactivities, and other non-point sources.

The u .S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is the federal agencyresponsible for ensuring that therequirements of the Clean Water Act and itsimplementing regulations are met. In theState of California, EP A has delegated manyof its authorities under the Clean Water Actto the State Water Resources Control Boardand its Regional Water Boards. Havingbeen delegated these Clean Water Actauthorities, the Regional Water Board is theprimary agency responsible forimplementing programs such as the TMDLprogram. But, EP A retains its ultimateresponsibility for the program.

"The result of the lawsuit was asettlement between EPA and theplaintiffs in which EP A agreed toensure that TMDLs for the 17identified watersheds weredeveloped in 10 years, not 20."

While it is not so difficult todetermine if the instream environment iscapable of supporting beneficial uses, it ismuch more difficult to determine the amountof sediment from hills lope activities whichis contributing to the impairments seeninstream. Thus, the greatest challenge in thedevelopment of a TMDL for sediment is intrying to detem1ine the amount of sedimenta watershed can withstand before losing itsability to fully support the identifiedbeneficial uses. This challenge, whiletechnically difficul~ offers an exceptionalopportunity to exercise creativity andscientific ingenuity .Interested parties areinvited to share their creative ideas in thedevelopment ofTMDLs on the North Coastthrough participation in public meetings;review and comment on work products; andthe submittal of relevant information/data,data interpretation, and watershed analyses.

The Regional Water Board proposedthe listing of 17 watersheds in the NorthCoast on the 303( d) list as impaired due tosedimentation, elevated temperature, and/ornutrients. EP A modified the list andpublished it in the Federal Register.Subsequently, the Regional Water Boardadopted a schedule for developing TMDLsfor these 1 7 watersheds. The schedulecalled for completion of the TMDLs within20 years.

See Lawsuit, Page 5

4

Board was unable to meet the December1997 deadline. The Regional Water Boardwas unable to make a decision regarding theadoption of the proposed Garcia RiverTMDL at its January 1998 hearing. Thus,EP A developed its own TMDL to meet thenew March 1998 deadline.

Lawsuit

Continued .from Page 4

The Plaintiffs in Pacific CoastFederation of Fishermen's Association vs.Marcus sued EP A arguing that they were notensuring the development of TMDLs on theNorth Coast in a timely fashion. Theyargued that the schedule for TMDLdevelopment on the North Coast should beconsiderably shortened.

The Regional Water Board continuedits deliberation of a TMDL for the GarciaRiver watershed and adopted one in May1998. It then revised it in December 1998.The Regional Water Board's revised TMDLfor sediment in the Garcia River watershedwill be considered first by the State WaterResources Control Board and then theState's Office of Administrative Law beforeit is submitted to EP A as a replacement ofEPA's TMDL for the Garcia River.

"The hope is that (the TMDLs) willresult in the timely implementationof mitigation and land management

measures designed to reducesedimentation."

The result of the lawsuit was asettlement between EP A and the plaintiffs inwhich EP A agreed to ensure that TMDLs forthe 17 identified watersheds were developedin 10 years, not 20. To accomplish this task,EP A agreed to develop half of the TMDLsthemselves while the Regional Water Boardcontinues its work on the TMDLs it hadslated for:completion in the first 10 years ofits 20 year schedule. According to theconsent decree, EP A agrees to "backstop"the Regional Water Board by takingresponsibility for developing any TMDLsthe Regional Water Board is unable todevelop on time.

The settlement agreement betweenEP .0\ and the plaintiffs has resulted in anaggressive schedule for TMDLdevelopment. The hope is that this willresult in the timely implementation ofmitigation and land management measuresdesigned to reduce sedimentation. Such anoutcome would certainly benefit thethreatened species of fish, as well as theecological functioning of the watershedoverall.

Such was the case in the GarciaRiver watershed. The Garcia Riverwatershed was the first watershed scheduledfor the development of a TMDL. On theoriginal schedule. the TMDL was to becompleted by December 1997. Theplaintiffs granted EP A an extension untilMarch of 1998 since the Regional Water

It also means, however, that TMDLsmust be developed based on the infomlationthat can be gathered and assessed quickly.Where data collectors, includinglandowners, are willing to share theirinformation, the time schedule should not bea barrier to the development of anappropriate TMDL. Where there is lesssuch cooperation, however, the TMDLs arelikely to require conservative asswnptionswhich result in more restrictive source

See Lawsuit, Page 6

5

North Coast Court-AdministeredTMDLSchedule

Lawsuit

Continued .from Page 5

allocations than might later be detemlined as

necessary.

IE1'~~~ ~,~RedwoodCreekSedIment ,c;:::.~;.::'..

1'~=RIVer~;;: .iISoUthForkEel, ",

I ~avarro River Sediment andtemp;

T~ty ~ver S~~ent :'",AlbIon'River SedIment ;:;'c::;;'cc ,"C.,,"C,cGti8.l8.laRiver Sediment "C,'c;::":; ""'- c cc"C,"Big River Sediment 'c

lMattOI~RIVer S~imentand,te~~

""

1K1amath RiverScott River

ISc'h Riasta ver

D:ate.

1997

1998

)998.999J999

t99920002000c2001

2001200t20012002

Sediment and temp; 2002

Sediment and temp; 2003

JO04

2004

2005 ,

2005

The Garcia River

Experiment

Sediment and temp.NUtrients and temp;;Sediment andtemp~

c,' Temp. and diSsolved,oxyg en

Middle Main Fork

EelRiver Sediment andtemp~

Eel River Delta Sediment andtemp~

i Mad River Sediment and turbidity

200520062007

The Garcia River TMDL was thefirst TMDL to address erosion fromforestlands on the north coast. Staff at theRegional Water Board used the Garcia Riveras a pilot study to determine whether or notthe development of a consensus-basedTMDL was possible. The Garcia River wasidentified as a good test case because ofsubstantial information existing for the basinand the presence of an existing watershedgroup. The Garcia River WatershedAdvisory Group, or W AG, had had greatsuccess in developing a consensus-basedrestoration plan in the early 19905. RegionalWater Board staff hoped to develop aconsensus-based TMDL because theyunderstood that the accompanying

implementation plan might otherwise causedivisions among landowners, resourcesmanagers and fisher/environmental groups.The implementation plan, adopted in theBasin Plan, describes the actions that mustbe taken to improve conditions in the basin.

Unfortunately, the time available tocomplete the TMDL did not allow forresolution of all of the issues confronting theW AG .As such, the group did not developconsensus on the TMDL. But, the processrequired regular discussion and exchange of

See Experiment, Page 7

6

EP A and Regional Water Board staffhope to foster the development ofcooperative relationships with all theinterested parties so that the North CoastTMDLs are developed with carefulconsideration of the known facts related toboth the environmental condition and landmanagement challenges. Data collectors,including landowners, are encouraged toshare information regarding the condition oftheir watersheds to ensure that the futureTMDLs reflect on-the-ground conditions asaccurately as possible.

They include: Laguna de Santa Rosa(ammonia and dissolved oxygen), StempleCreek (nutrients and sediment), Garcia River(sediment), and Redwood Creek (sediment.)Redwood Creek will be considered foradoption at the March 1999 Board Meeting.

Experiment

Continuedfrom Page 6

infonnation from which the final TMDLimmensely benefited.

In addition, EP A has been quiteactive with regard to TMDLs on the northcoast. They have developed TMDLs for theSouth Fork Trinity River, Garcia River, andRedwood Creek. EP A agreed as a result ofits lawsuit settlement with fisher andenvironmental groups to develop the SouthFork Trinity River TMDL itself. The GarciaRiver and Redwood Creek TMDLs weredeveloped to backstop the Regional WaterBoard which was unable to meet the court-administered TMDL schedule. EP A willconsider replacing their own TMDLs withthe State's TMDLs once the State's TMDLsha~/e wer.ded their wa)' through t..~e Stateapproval process in Sacramento.

North Coast TMDL Update

The North Coast Regional WaterBoard has been busy working on TMDLs forthe last several years. Prior to the lawsuitagainst EP A by fisher and environmentalgroups, .the Nonh Coast Regional WaterBoard hid listed 17 watersheds as impaired,with the intention of developing TMDLs foreach of them. Even since the new time

pressures associated with the lawsuit, theRegional Water Board has continued to listadditional waterbodies and pollutants. Forexample, at the April 1998 meeting, theRegional Water Board approved theproposal to list on the 303{ d) list thefollowing waterbodies: temperature in theGarcia River, sediment in Elk River,sediment in Freshwater Creek, sediment inthe Russian River, dissolved oxygen in theKlamath River and temperature in the SouthFork Trinity River. Regional Water Boardstaff have also developed four TMDLs.

EP A's conclusion, though, is that tomeet the consent decree deadlines, the

Regional Water Board can not spend anymore federal money on the development of

implementation plans for TMDLs. Thetechnical elements of the TMDLs must fIrStbe written to ensure compliance with the

court-administered schedule. At some pointin the future, implementation plans will thenbe written and considered for adoption intothe Basin Plan.

~ .1! t4t

Please fill out this form to add or remove your name from the Noyo River Watershed mailing list.

oo

Add this name to the mailing listRemove this name from the mailing list

Name

Address

Phone E-mail

Return to:

Alydda MangelsdorfCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board

North Coast Region5550 Skylane Blvd. Suite A

Santa Rosa. CA 95403

~::t;1~1 --,...:,

I\r':.. /r:;c:---t .~ i r.\ .". 1 \ ~~~... ~

!\~,

~ 1Qc'ate~1tee(.t4$:1<". .., -, ,

\\'...~\ ;~ ~ \

,. -.~'~?~I.., ~~:.~...,:..z:-~~~

:.,~ "'~: ;, g.]~ 77?:.. ~t-j,~:,~~,:;,~. r ~ (.:: ';J-.-~.."';-I\ l.r\RiA

Draft Noyo River TMDL Now Available

public review and comment processes willcome into play.

Staff at the Regional Water Board havecompleted a draft of the Noyo River Th1DLand have it available for public perusal. Thedraft was submitted to the U.S.Enviroiunental Protection Agency for theirreview on June 15, 1999. A fmal StateTMDL will be submitted to EP A in mid-July 1999.

For now, the State's draft Noyo RiverTMDL is available for informal review.Once the State's fmal TMDL is preparedand forwarded on to EP A, the EP A will thenembark on a formal TMDL-developmentand adoption process, including publicmeetings and comment periods. The court-administered consent decree requires thatEP A approve a TMDL prior to December31, 1999.

The Noyo River TMDL is unlike theStemple Creek TMDL. Garcia River TI\1DL.or Redwood Creek T:v1DL in one veryimportant regard. The Noyo River TMDL isa "technical" 1MDL. only. That is, it doesnot, at this stage, include an implementationplan or a monitoring plan. It includes thetechnical analysis necessary to support thedevelopment of numeric targets and loadallocations.

"The Noyo River TMDL is a 'technical'TMDL, only ...(I)t does not, at this stage,

include an implementation plan ora monitoring plan."

Anyone interested in providing commentson the State's draft TMDL should send themto the Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, to the attention of AlyddaMangelsdorf. The State will address asmany of the comments as possible prior tothe preparation of it's final TMDL which isthen to be submitted to EP A. Those whichcan not be addressed \vill be forwarded on toEP A for its consideration in the fonnalfederal public review process.

This is the case because the federal fundingreceived by the State to develop TMDLswas earmarked for the development of.~echnical" TMDLs~ only. The quickdevelopment of"technical" TMDLs isnecessary to ensure EP A's compliance witha court-administered TMDL consent decree.

The s tate will develop an implementationplan and monitoring plan sometime in thefuture from which an amendment to theRegional Water Board's Basin Plan will beproposed. At that point. all the normal State Again. when the State undertakes the

development of an implementation plan and

monitoring plan for the Noyo River TMDL.the State will embark on a formal publicreview process. as well.

The availability of large woody debrisfor habitat strUcture, pool formation, andsediment metering appears to be limited.The availability of off-channel habitatand large cobbles or boulders may belimited for overwintering salmonids.Fine sediment and embedded gravelsappear to be a problem primarily in themid- and lower- watershed.

.

.

.

Request a copy of the State's draft NoyoRiver TMDL by calling (707) 576-2030 orsending an e-mail tomanga@rbl.swrcb.ca.gov. Send commentsto the North Coast Regional Water QualityControl Board, 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A,Santa Rosa, CA 95403, attn: AlyddaMangelsdorf, or to the e-mail address above. .

.

Highlights of the draft Noyo TMDL

.The Noyo River was listed as impaired dueto elevated sedimentation. As such, theNoyo River TMDL is a sediment TMDL.TIle following is synopsis of the TMDL as itis expressed in the draft.

.

.

..

GeneralThe TMDL does not yet include an

implementation plan.The.~L does not yet include a

monitoring plan.The TMDL has involved, to date, onlyinfonnal public review and input.

.

.

.

.

Instream AssessmentThe assessment of instream problems arebased primarily on data provided byMendocino Redwood Company, theDepartment of Fish and Game, theDepartment of F orestry , and theRegional Water Board' s own files.The frequency and depth of poolsappears to be the primary habitat-relatedproblem in the Noyo River watershed.

Source AssessmentThe analysis of sediment inputs wasconducted by Graham Matthews &Associates.The analysis of sediment inputs is basedon 1 :24,000 scale aerial photographsdating back to 1942 and including atleast one set of photos for every decadefrom the 1940s through the 19905.The analysis misses small landslides.The photo sets were incomplete for the19405 and 19505 photos. Thus~ thefmdings represent ~ an under estimateof sediment delivery over time.Harvest activity since 1986 has beenmost intense in the North Fork Noyo andHayworth Creek region.Evenaged timber management is thepredominant group of silvicultura1systems used in the Noyo, except onJackson Demonstration State Forest inthe South Fork Noyo.Tractor yarding is the predominantmethod of yarding, except on JacksonDemonstration State Forest where 56%of the harvest since 1986 has beenyarded by skyline cables.Road density ranges from 6 to 8 mi/mi2.Landsliding related to the railroad wassignificant up until the last ten years, orso.Improved forest practices as conductedin the Noyo River watershed in the

.

2

. Reductions are proposed from road sitesin the South Fork Noyo RiverAssessment Area.Reductions are proposed from railro~road, skid trail and harvest sites in theMainstem Noyo River Assessment Area.

1979-1999 period have apparentlyslowed sediment delivery , in some cases,Bu4 they do not appear to havecontrolled sediment delivery , overall.

.

.

Imulementation and MonitoringImplementation of the TMDL isintended to follow the development ofbaseline surveys by discharginglandowners in the Noyo Riverwatershed.Both the numeric targets and loadallocations will be refined as more site-specific information is submitted.Monitoring should focus on the hill slopeand instream concerns specific toindividual propenies and/or regions.Some subset of the parameters should bemonitored throughout the watershed toprovide information regarding long-termtrends and regional differences.

.

.

Numeric TargetsAs indicators of overall watershedheal~ a decrease in the width-to-depthratio in tributaries is proposed. TheBasin Plan's turbidity objective is alsoreiterated.As indictors of habitat quality, percentfmes, pool dimensions, v* , thalwegprofile, and backwater pool frequencytargets are proposed.As indicators ofhillslope management,stream crossing failure, hydrologicconnectivity , and disturbed area targetsare proposed.

.

Food for Thought

Prior to submitting a fmal TMDL for theNoyo River watershed to the EP A, staff atthe Regional Water Board will be evaluatingthe necessity and likely effectiveness ofestablishing large woody debris loadallocations, in addition to the sediment loadallocations. Anyone with information oropinions on the efficacy of such a tacj:.should contact Alydda Mangelsdorf at (7070576-2030 or via e-mail atmanga@rb l.swrcb.ca.gov .

Load AllocationsLoad a1locatior1S are based on theaverage sediment delivery in the 1979-1999 period for the whole watershed;bu~ allocated by geographic region:Headwaters. North Fork Noyo, SouthFork Noyo, and Mainstem Noyoassessment areas.Load allocations are expressed as apercent reduction in sediment delivery .The percent reductions are developedbased on sediment delivery estimatesprovided by Graham Matthews &Associates. However, implementation isintended to be based on on-the-groundbaseline surveys.Reductions are proposed from railroadand road sites in the HeadwatersAssessment Area.Reductions are proposed from road andskid trail sites in the Nonh Fork RiverNoyo Assessment Area.

.

3

?1ta.t.'II9 -'!l4tPlease fill out this form to add or remove your name from the Noyo River Watershed mailing list.

oo

Add this name to the mailing listRemove this name from the mailing list

Name

Address

City - State Zip.

E-mailPhone

Return to:

Alydda MangelsdorfCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board

Nonh Coast Region5550 Skylane Blvd. Suite A

Santa Rosa, CA 95403