calaveras river 2016 watershed sanitary surveythe calaveras river watershed upstream of bellota is...
TRANSCRIPT
Calaveras River
2016 Watershed Sanitary Survey
October 12, 2016
Prepared for
Calaveras County Water District
Stockton East Water District
Karen E. Johnson Water Resources Planning
CALAVERAS RIVER
2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY
PREPARED FOR
STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT
&
CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
October 2016
Prepared by:
Karen E. Johnson Water Resources Planning
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-1
Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Regulatory Requirement for a Watershed Sanitary Survey ............................................................... 1-1
Stanislaus/Calaveras River Group ................................................................................................................ 1-1
Survey Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Report Organization ........................................................................................................................................... 1-2
Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 1-3
Section 2 Watershed Characteristics and Infrastructure ........................................................................... 2-1
Watershed Study Area and Water Supply System ................................................................................. 2-1
Calaveras River Watershed Sanitary Survey Study Area Description ........................................... 2-4
Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 2-4
Topography ............................................................................................................................................ 2-4
Geology ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-4
Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 2-5
Land Use .................................................................................................................................................. 2-5
Urban/Residential/Commercial .................................................................................................... 2-5
Calaveras River Water Supply Systems ...................................................................................................... 2-5
White Pines Lake .................................................................................................................................. 2-6
Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant .......................................................................................... 2-6
New Hogan Dam ................................................................................................................................... 2-6
New Hogan Reservoir ........................................................................................................................ 2-6
Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant ............................................................................................... 2-7
Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant ................................................................................ 2-8
Section 3 Potential Contaminant Sources ........................................................................................................... 3-1
Watershed Counties and Subwatersheds .................................................................................................. 3-1
Water Quality Parameters of Concern ........................................................................................................ 3-3
Microorganisms .................................................................................................................................... 3-3
Disinfection By-Product Precursors ............................................................................................ 3-3
Turbidity .................................................................................................................................................. 3-3
SOCs, VOCs, Herbicides, Pesticides, and Metals ....................................................................... 3-4
Forestry Activities ............................................................................................................................................... 3-4
Concern .................................................................................................................................................... 3-5
Potential Contaminant Sources ...................................................................................................... 3-5
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................... 3-5
Irrigated Agriculture and Pesticides ............................................................................................................ 3-6
Concern .................................................................................................................................................... 3-6
Potential Contaminant Sources ...................................................................................................... 3-7
Irrigated Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 3-7
Pesticides and Herbicides ................................................................................................. 3-8
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................... 3-8
Livestock................................................................................................................................................................ 3-10
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-10
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-11
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-11
Mining ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-12
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-12
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-12
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-13
Active and Inactive Mines ............................................................................................... 3-13
Methyl Mercury ................................................................................................................... 3-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY
Recreation ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-14
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-14
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-14
Calaveras Big Trees State Park ..................................................................................... 3-15
White Pines Lake ................................................................................................................ 3-15
New Hogan Reservoir ....................................................................................................... 3-15
Less Formal Recreation Areas ...................................................................................... 3-16
Unauthorized Uses ............................................................................................................. 3-16
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-16
Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................ 3-17
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-17
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-17
Landfills .................................................................................................................................. 3-17
Underground Storage Tanks ......................................................................................... 3-17
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-18
Urban Runoff and Spills .................................................................................................................................. 3-19
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-19
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-19
Stormwater Runoff ............................................................................................................ 3-19
Spills ........................................................................................................................................ 3-20
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-21
Stormwater Runoff ............................................................................................................ 3-21
Spills ........................................................................................................................................ 3-22
Wastewater .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-23
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-23
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-23
Wastewater Treatment Dischargers – Land Disposal ......................................... 3-26
Sanitary Sewer Overflows .............................................................................................. 3-27
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems ................................................................... 3-27
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-28
Federal and State Laws for Point and Nonpoint Wastewater Discharges .. 3-28
State and Local Regulations for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems . 3-29
Wildfires ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-29
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-29
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-30
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-31
Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................... 3-32
Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-32
Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-33
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-33
Growth and Urbanization ............................................................................................................................... 3-34
Section 4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 4-1
Drinking Water Regulations ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
Surface Water Treatment Requirements ................................................................................... 4-1
Regulations of Disinfection By-Products.................................................................................... 4-3
Revised Total Coliform Rule ............................................................................................................ 4-5
Determining Compliance under the Revised TCR .................................................. 4-8
Level 1 Assessment ............................................................................................................. 4-8
Level 2 Assessment ............................................................................................................. 4-8
Failure to Conduct a Required Assessment ............................................................... 4-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY
RTCR Implementation in California as of April 2016 ............................................ 4-9
Additional Drinking Water Regulations ..................................................................................... 4-9
Future Drinking Water Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-9
Contaminant Candidate List ............................................................................................ 4-9
CCL3 ........................................................................................................................................... 4-9
UCMR ....................................................................................................................................... 4-10
Cyanobacteria ...................................................................................................................... 4-10
Six-Year Review of Regulations .................................................................................... 4-11
Long-Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) ............................... 4-11
Review of Water Quality Data ...................................................................................................................... 4-11
Sheep Ranch WTP .............................................................................................................................. 4-11
Sheep Ranch WTP Raw Water Quality ...................................................................... 4-12
Sheep Ranch WTP Treated Water Quality ............................................................... 4-13
Sheep Ranch Title 22 Monitoring ................................................................................ 4-14
Jenny Lind WTP .................................................................................................................................. 4-14
Jenny Lind WTP Raw Water Quality .......................................................................... 4-14
Jenny Lind WTP Treated Water Quality ................................................................... 4-16
Jenny Lind WTP Title 22 Monitoring ......................................................................... 4-17
Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP .................................................................................................................... 4-17
DJW WTP Raw Water Quality ....................................................................................... 4-18
DJW WTP Finished Water Quality ............................................................................... 4-21
DJW WTP Title 22 .............................................................................................................. 4-21
Section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 5-1
Potential Contaminant Sources ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
Water Quality Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 5-2
Sheep Ranch WTP ................................................................................................................................ 5-2
Jenny Lind WTP .................................................................................................................................... 5-3
DJW WTP ................................................................................................................................................. 5-3
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 5-4
Appendix A Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation ........... A-1
Appendix B Title 22 Monitoring Results (2011 – 2015) ............................................................................. B-1
Appendix C References .................................................................................................................................................. C-1
LIST OF FIGURES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY
Figure 2-1 Calaveras River Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2 Water Treatment Plant Intake Locations .......................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-3 Monthly Storage in New Hogan Reservoir (2011-2015) ............................................................ 2-7
Figure 3-1 Calaveras River Watershed Schematic of Facilities ....................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 WWTP NPDES Surface Water Discharges ....................................................................................... 3-25
Figure 3-3 2015 Butte Fire ........................................................................................................................................... 3-32
Figure 4-1 Flow Chart for Revised Total Coliform Rule ..................................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-2 Sheep Ranch Total Coliforms (2011-2015) .................................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-3 Sheep Ranch E. coli (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................ 4-12
Figure 4-4 Sheep Ranch Turbidity (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-13
Figure 4-5 Sheep Ranch pH (2011-2015) .............................................................................................................. 4-13
Figure 4-6 Sheep Ranch TOC (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-7 Sheep Ranch Alkalinity (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-13
Figure 4-8 Sheep Ranch THMs (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................ 4-14
Figure 4-9 Sheep Ranch HAA5 (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................ 4-14
Figure 4-10 Jenny Lind Total Coliforms (2011-2015) ...................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-11 Jenny Lind E. coli (2011-2015) .......................................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-12 Jenny Lind Turbidity (2011-2015) .................................................................................................. 4-15
Figure 4-13 Jenny Lind pH (2011-2015) ............................................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-14 Jenny Lind TOC (2011-2015) ............................................................................................................. 4-16
Figure 4-15 Jenny Lind Alkalinity (2011-2015).................................................................................................. 4-16
Figure 4-16 Jenny Lind THMs (2011-2015) ......................................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-17 Jenny Lind HAA5 (2011-2015) ......................................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-18 Jenny Lind THM LRAAs (2011-2015) ............................................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4-19 Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs (2011-2015) ........................................................................................... 4-17
Figure 4-20 DJW WTP Weekly Total Coliforms (2011-2015) ....................................................................... 4-18
Figure 4-21 DJW WTP Weekly E. coli (2011-2015) ........................................................................................... 4-18
Figure 4-22 DJW WTP Daily Turbidity (2011-2015) ........................................................................................ 4-19
Figure 4-23 DJW WTP Daily Hardness (2011-2015) ........................................................................................ 4-19
Figure 4-24 DJW WTP Daily Temperature (2011-2015) ................................................................................ 4-20
Figure 4-25 DJW WTP Daily Color (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-20
Figure 4-26 DJW WTP Monthly TOC (2011-2015) ............................................................................................ 4-20
Figure 4-27 DJW WTP Monthly Alkalinity (2011-2015) ................................................................................. 4-20
Figure 4-28 DJW WTP Quarterly THMs (2011-2015) ...................................................................................... 4-21
Figure 4-29 DJW WTP Quarterly HAA5 (2011-2015) ...................................................................................... 4-21
Figure 4-30 DJW WTP THM LRAA (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-21
Figure 4-31 DJW WTP HAA5 LRAA (2011-2015) ............................................................................................... 4-21
LIST OF TABLES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY
Table 3-1 Relationship Between Contaminant Sources and Water Quality Concerns .......................... 3-4
Table 3-2 Crop Production Acreage - Calaveras County .................................................................................... 3-7
Table 3-3 Pesticide Quantities ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8
Table 3-4 Top Five Pesticides Used – 2014 ............................................................................................................. 3-9
Table 3-5 Cattle in Calaveras County ....................................................................................................................... 3-11
Table 3-6 Active Mines – Calaveras River Watershed ...................................................................................... 3-13
Table 3-7 Leaking Underground Storage Sites .................................................................................................... 3-18
Table 3-8 NPDES Stormwater Permittees with Enforcement Actions or Violations ........................... 3-20
Table 3-9 Hazardous Material Spills within the Calaveras River Watershed ......................................... 3-21
Table 3-10 Surface Water WWTP Dischargers in Calaveras River Watershed ...................................... 3-23
Table 3-11 Land Disposal Dischargers in the Calaveras River Watershed .............................................. 3-26
Table 3-12 Sanitary System Overflows in Collection Systems (2011 to 2015)...................................... 3-27
Table 3-13 Fires in Calaveras River Watershed (2011 to 2015) ................................................................. 3-31
Table 3-14 Population of Calaveras County .......................................................................................................... 3-34
Table 4-1 Coliform Triggers for Increased Giardia and Virus Reduction ................................................... 4-1
Table 4-2 LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring Schedule............................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-3 LT2ESWTR Bin Classification ................................................................................................................... 4-3
Table 4-4 Step 1 TOC Removal Requirements ....................................................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-5 Step 2 Enhanced Coagulation Target pH Values ............................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-6 EPA 10-day HA Values (µg/L) ................................................................................................................ 4-10
Table 5-1 Risk Associated with Contaminant Sources ....................................................................................... 5-1
Table B-1 Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant..................... B-1
Table B-2 Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Sheep Ranch WTP ............................................... B-4
Table B-3 Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant ......................... B-6
Table B-4 Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Jenny Lind WTP ................................................... B-9
Table B-5 Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP ............................................. B-11
Table B-6 Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP .................................. B-15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY ES-1
When California adopted the federal Surface Water Treatment Rule, a requirement was included
that systems conduct a watershed sanitary survey (WSS) and update the WSS every five years.
This WSS update for the Calaveras River covers the years 2011-2015 for Stockton East Water
District (SEWD) and the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). For the purposes of this report,
the Calaveras River watershed upstream of Bellota is included in this WSS. Within the watershed,
SEWD owns and operates the Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant (DJW WTP). CCWD owns
and operates the Sheep Ranch and Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plants (Sheep Ranch WTP and
Jenny Lind WTP).
The Sheep Ranch WTP intake is on San Antonio Creek, tributary to the South Fork of the Calaveras
River. The Jenny Lind and DJW WTP intakes are on the main-stem Calaveras River. The DJW WTP
also has a raw water supply from the Stanislaus River watershed. The two reservoirs in the study
area are New Hogan Reservoir and White Pines Lake.
The objectives of this WSS are to:
1. Comply with California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water
requirements,
2. Prepare an inventory and assessment of potential contaminant sources,
3. Review water quality data and evaluate ability to comply with drinking water regulations,
and
4. Present findings and any recommendations to maintain and improve water quality.
The following potential sources of contaminants are reviewed and presented in this WSS:
Forestry Activities
Irrigated agriculture and the use of pesticides
Livestock
Mining
Recreation
Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Urban Runoff and Spills
Wastewater
Wildfires
Wildlife
Most categories above present a low risk to water quality in the Calaveras River watershed. There
is no information to indicate that timber harvesting, agriculture, mines, solid and hazardous wastes,
urban runoff and spills and wastewater have contributed adversely to water quality in the study
period.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY ES-2
Cattle graze throughout the watershed; primarily in the lower rolling foothills in the winter and in
the higher elevations in the summer. Cattle grazing occurs upstream of New Hogan on private land
upstream of the confluence of the North and South Fork.
During 2011-2015, all three raw water intakes experienced elevated levels of total coliforms in the
raw water. For the Jenny Lind and DJW WTPs the increase in total coliforms was especially
noticeable during 2015. All three systems also provided five years of monitoring results for E. coli.
The E. coli results, as a more direct indicator of fecal impacts, do not show the same increases as
seen with the total coliform results. The elevated levels of total coliforms may be an indication of California’s ongoing drought and its impact on river and reservoir water quality, as opposed to an
indication of impacts from livestock, wildlife, recreation or wastewater facilities.
During the period of study, the data did not indicate a general trend in raw water turbidity. All
three raw water intakes experienced increases in turbidity associated with winter/spring storms.
On four occasions during 2011-2015, the raw water to the Sheep Ranch WTP spiked above 8 NTU,
which triggers a forced plant operation shutdown. The Jenny Lind WTP experienced a significant
turbidity spike during the last nine days of 2015. The intake to the Jenny Lind WTP showed an
increase in Total Organic Carbon (TOC) beginning in fall 2014 through the end of 2015. Where TOC
had typically been 2.5 to 3 mg/L up to that time, after fall 2014, the monthly measured TOC was 4
mg/L or higher with a maximum of 6.5 mg/L. The calculated Locational Running Annual Averages
(LRAAs) for all four of the Jenny Lind Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) compliance locations were
increasing from winter 2014 through the end of 2015. Several individual locations had TTHM
results over the MCL of 80 µg/L.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-1
This section presents the regulatory purpose of the watershed sanitary survey, survey methods,
report organization, and abbreviations and acronyms.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENT FOR A WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY
The federal Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) promulgated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1989 includes a recommendation for all surface water systems to
prepare watershed control plans. The State of California Title 22, Code of Regulations (CCR), Article
7, Section 64665, however, requires all water suppliers to conduct a sanitary survey of their
watersheds at least once every five years that evaluates potential contaminant sources within the
watershed that may impact drinking water quality.
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations requires that the initial watershed sanitary survey
include a physical and hydrological description of the watershed, a summary of source water
quality monitoring data, a description of activities and sources of contamination, a description of watershed control and management practices, an evaluation of the system’s ability to meet requirements of Title 22 – Chapter 17: Surface Water Filtration and Disinfection Treatment, and
recommendations for corrective actions. Updates must include a description of any significant
changes that have occurred since the last survey which could affect the quality of the source water.
STANISLAUS/CALAVERAS RIVER GROUP
A number of public water systems formed the Stanislaus/Calaveras River Group (SCRG) as a
mechanism through which to prepare the WSS for the Stanislaus and the Calaveras Rivers. The
SCRG is composed of the Stockton East Water District, the Calaveras County Water District, the
Tuolumne Utilities District the Union Public Utility District, the South San Joaquin Irrigation
District, the City of Angels Camp, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Knights Ferry
Community Services District .
The Stockton East Water District (SEWD) and the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) divert
drinking water from the Calaveras River. For the purposes of this report, the study area consists of
the Calaveras River watershed upstream of Bellota.
The first Calaveras River WSS was completed in December 1995, and the most recent update was
completed in May 2011.
SURVEY METHODS
WQTS, Inc. and Karen Johnson Water Resources Planning prepared this watershed sanitary survey.
A literature search consisted of collecting and reviewing reports, maps, aerial photographs, data,
file documents, and other information from government agencies and others responsible for land
uses and activities in the watershed. Telephone and email contacts were made with various entities
for updated information and data.
The project kick-off meeting was held March 2, 2016. At that meeting the SCRG participating
agencies were provided with a written data request. The requested data included: water quality
data, information on modifications to intake and/or treatment facilities, changes in watershed
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-2
management, etc. Following the kick-off meeting, field surveys of selected locations in the watershed were conducted. A shared public Dropbox™ folder was set up to allow the easy exchange of large amounts of data. A progress meeting was held on May 26, 2016 with SCRG agencies.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report presents a description of the watershed, SCRG intake and treatment facilities,
identification of potential contaminant sources, and an analysis of water quality data. The content
and organization of this watershed sanitary survey are consistent with the format recommended in
the American Water Works Association California-Nevada Section Watershed Sanitary Survey
Guidance Manual (1993).
Report sections are described below. Appendices provide supporting information and data tables.
SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION. This section presents the purpose of the watershed sanitary survey,
survey methods, report organization, and abbreviations used in the report.
SECTION 2 – WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. This section provides background
information on the watershed study area. It describes natural physical and hydrologic
characteristics. A summary is provided of the SEWD and CCWD surface water supplies and primary
infrastructure related to the raw water sources and brief descriptions of the SEWD and CCWD
treatment facilities.
SECTION 3 – POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES. This section provides a summary and update of
potential contaminant sources by land use. Each primary land use is described in terms of
significance for the potential to impact drinking water quality, potential contaminant sources in this
watershed, and agencies with watershed water quality protection responsibility and their
management activities. Planned changes to land uses in the watershed has been updated from the
last survey and are presented here.
SECTION 4 – WATER QUALITY REVIEW. Current drinking water regulations are summarized in this
section, along with a discussion of potential drinking water regulations within the next 5-years.
Source water quality data from the watershed study area and treated water quality data are
presented and reviewed.
SECTION 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This section provides a summary of key findings
and a list of recommendations.
APPENDIX A – Roche, L.M., et al. Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands. PLOS One. June 2013. Volume 8, Issue 6.
APPENDIX B – Title 22 Monitoring Results (2011-2015)
APPENDIX C – REFERENCES.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-3
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AL Action Level
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practices
BOF Bureau of Forestry
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate
Cal EMA California Emergency Management System
Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CCR Code of Regulations
CCWD Calaveras County Water District
CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
CEDEN California Environmental Data Exchange Network
CDPR California Department of Pesticide Regulation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CFU Colony Forming Units
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CS Collection System
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
DBP Disinfection By-Products
D/DBP Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products
DDW SWRCB Division of Drinking Water
DJW WTP Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DWR California Department of Water Resources
DQAP Dairy Quality Assurance Program
E. coli Escherichia coli
EMA Emergency Management Agency
GPD Gallons Per Day
GPM Gallons Per Minute
HAA Haloacetic Acid
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IOC Inorganic Chemicals
L Liter
LRAA Locational Running Annual average
LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million gallons per day
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-4
mg/L Milligrams per liter
mL Milliliter
MPN Most Probable Number
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
NL Notification Level
NOM Natural Organic Matter
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OHV Off-Highway Vehicle
OWTS Onsite Wastewater Treatment
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
psi Pounds Per Square Inch
PWS Public Water System
RAA Running Annual average
RCD Resource Conservation District
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCRG Stanislaus/Calaveras River Group
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEWD Stockton East Water District
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical
SPI Sierra Pacific Industries
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SUVA Specific UV Absorbance
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
THMs Trihalomethanes
THP Timber Harvest Plan/Permit
Title 22 Division 4, Chapter 3, Title 22, California Code of Regulations
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TTHM Total Trihalomethanes
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule μg/L micrograms per liter
USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tank
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV Ultraviolet
VOC Volatile Organic Chemical
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-5
WFMP Working Forest Management Plan
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facilities
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-1
WATERSHED STUDY AREA AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
The Calaveras River watershed is located in Calaveras, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties in
northern California, with the majority of the watershed lying within the northwestern portion of
Calaveras County (see Figure 2-1). The western most part of the watershed is in San Joaquin County
with a small southwestern portion in Stanislaus County.
SEWD and CCWD operate three primary drinking water intakes in the Calaveras River watershed—two on the Calaveras River, and one on San Antonio Creek, a tributary to the South Fork Calaveras
River (see Figure 2-2). The intake locations are described below:
SEWD owns and operates a Water Treatment Plant (WTP) located in Stockton (Dr. Joe
Waidhofer WTP) which has an intake on the Calaveras River at Bellota, downstream of New
Hogan Reservoir.
CCWD owns and operates two WTPs in this watershed: Sheep Ranch WTP, which has an
intake on San Antonio Creek, downstream of White Pines Lake, and Jenny Lind WTP, which
has an intake on the Calaveras River, downstream of New Hogan Reservoir.
The Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP serves the City of Stockton and surrounding unincorporated areas. The
most recent population estimate for Stockton is 315,592 (CDOF 2016). The total population served by the plant is 33 , . The WTP’s current operating permit is for 65 MGD. The Calaveras River just
upstream of Bellota is one of two water supplies for the WTP; the secondary diversion is at
Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus River. A separate WSS covers the Stanislaus River supply. CCWD’s Sheep Ranch WTP serves the 134-person population of Sheep Ranch through 48
connections, and has a capacity of 30 gallons per minute (gpm). CCWD’s Jenny Lind WTP is located in the Rancho Calaveras subdivision about 3 miles south of Valley Springs. The WTP serves a population of 9,592 through 3,807 connections and has a capacity
of 6 MGD.
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-2
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-3
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-4
CALAVERAS RIVER WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION For purposes of the WSS, the Calaveras River watershed ends at SEWD’s Bellota intake. HYDROLOGY
The Calaveras River originates on the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Esperanza and Jesus
Maria creeks join to form the North Fork of the Calaveras River; and Calaveritas, San Antonio, and
San Domingo creeks join to form the South Fork. The North and South Forks of the Calaveras River
join about 7 miles above New Hogan Dam.
Historically, the Calaveras River was an intermittent stream with flows supplied almost entirely by
rainfall. Today, flows in the Calaveras River are regulated and controlled by New Hogan Dam and
Reservoir. The average annual run-off to New Hogan Reservoir is approximately 166,000 acre-feet.
Flows from rainfall runoff in the watershed typically occur from November through April. Rainfall
intensities are generally moderate but prolonged over several days. Resulting flows are usually
characterized by high, short-duration peaks.
New Hogan Reservoir and White Pines Lake are the largest water supply reservoirs in the
watershed. Historic mining ditches, pipes, and current drinking and agricultural water supply
diversions exist on tributaries to the North and South Forks of the Calaveras River. Water is
diverted from San Antonio Creek at the Sheep Ranch WTP intake. From New Hogan Dam, the river
flows about 18 miles to Bellota, where flow is diverted from the original Calaveras River channel
into Mormon Slough and the Dr. Joe Waidhofer intake.
TOPOGRAPHY
Extending to its confluence with the San Joaquin River, the Calaveras River watershed is a 473-
square-mile drainage basin that includes reservoirs and natural lakes. The watershed above the
largest reservoir, New Hogan, is 363 square miles. The flows from these waters support various
downstream uses, including hydropower generation, domestic and irrigation water supplies, and habitat. The river’s headwaters of the North and South Forks originate on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. The Calaveras River watershed is located primarily in the hilly to steep terrain of the
lower western slope of the Sierra Nevada.
The terrain varies from mild slopes and meadows in the western rolling foothills to more rugged
mountains and wilderness in the upper Sierra Nevada region. Deep ravines and steep ridges are
found between these areas, with parallel ridges separating the principal tributaries. Elevations
range from 130 feet at Bellota and 550 feet at New Hogan Dam to about 6,000 feet at the highest
point. From New Hogan Dam to Bellota, the Calaveras River basin consists primarily of foothills.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the Calaveras River watershed study area is meta-sediments and meta-volcanic rock
of Mesozoic age, overlain by tertiary sediment and volcanic rocks. Large granitic outcrops are
visible in the highest elevations. Upper elevation soils are typically fine textured, meta-volcanic
residual of moderate depth and good drainage. Most upper elevation soils are moderately shallow
to very shallow, generally loamy, and range from neutral to slightly acid or acid. Most soils are of
coarse fragments, and rock outcrops are common. In the lower elevations near New Hogan Dam,
soils are residual, derived from meta-sedimentary slate and schist, meta-basic igneous rocks,
granitic rock, and volcanic conglomerate.
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-5
The Calaveras River watershed lies within a historically low seismicity area. The only fault system
that could potentially cause surface rupture within Calaveras County is the Melones-Bear Valley or
Sierra Foothills fault system, which extends across the lower portion of the County, between
Murphys and New Hogan Reservoir.
VEGETATION
Plant communities in the Calaveras River watershed include grassland, brush land and chaparral,
and deciduous and coniferous forest. Dominant species include large oaks, willows, and alders, with
an undergrowth of herbaceous plants and scattered low shrubs such as California scrub oak, dwarf
live oak, chemise, digger pine, manzanita, poison oak, elderberry, California bay, and wild grape,
depending on water availability. Species of wildflowers commonly found near the river are shooting
star, buttercup, larkspur, and mariposa lily. Fruit and Nut Orchards, vineyards, and row crops are
grown at several locations adjacent to the Calaveras River, between New Hogan Dam and Bellota.
Vineyards are present along San Domingo and Calaveritas Creeks in the upper watershed.
LAND USE
The region is characterized by scattered rural residential land use in the lower watershed. Small
urban and commercial centers are concentrated at various locations along the major highways.
Water-based recreation resorts are located upstream of the Bellota intake at New Hogan Reservoir.
Land use in the Calaveras River watershed includes residential, forest, industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses. The watershed’s eastern edge lies within the Stanislaus National Forest;
however, no significant recreation sites are located within this part of the forest. A portion of the
Calaveras Big Trees State Park is located in the Calaveras River watershed. One of the three
campgrounds at the park is located in the Big Trees Creek watershed; Big Trees Creek flows into
San Antonio Creek, and subsequently the South Fork Calaveras River.
URBAN/RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
The watershed is sparsely populated, with several small towns located near historical mining or
agricultural areas. The most recent population estimates available from the California State
Department of Finance (CDOF 2016) report the population of Calaveras County as 45,207. The only
incorporated city in Calaveras County is the City of Angels Camp, which has a population of 4,045
(CDOF 2016); however, Angels Camp lies outside the Calaveras River watershed boundary. Other
small communities within the Calaveras River watershed are located adjacent to the major
highways, including San Andreas, Jenny Lind, Linden, Rancho Calaveras, and Valley Springs in the
lower watershed and Arnold, Camp Connell, and Dorrington, in the upper watershed. Other
communities located further off the main roads include Calaveritas, Sheep Ranch, Mountain Ranch,
and Railroad Flat. Many upper watershed communities have both permanent and seasonal
residences. Many homes are located adjacent to the river and its tributaries.
CALAVERAS RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
This section discusses the location, description and water supply information pertaining to the
various elements of the Calaveras River system. The Calaveras River system consists mainly of
natural waterways. New Hogan Reservoir and White Pines Lake are the primary water supply
reservoirs in the watershed. A few small reservoirs are also located in the watershed upstream of
New Hogan Reservoir. These small reservoirs have much less impact on the main body of the river
but may impact the tributaries on which they are located. No surface WTPs are located on these
tributaries.
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-6
Three WTPs are located within the watershed: Dr. Joe Waidhofer, Sheep Ranch, and Jenny Lind. The
Sheep Ranch WTP receives its water from San Antonio Creek, downstream of White Pines Lake. The
Jenny Lind and Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTPs obtain their water from the Calaveras River, downstream
of New Hogan Reservoir.
WHITE PINES LAKE
White Pines Lake is located at the upstream end of San Antonio Creek in the Calaveras River watershed’s northeastern portion. CCWD owns and operates the lake. White Pines Lake is a multi-
purpose reservoir, providing water supply, along with incidental flood control and recreational
benefits. At high water level, the lake volume is 262 AF. The lake is supplied mostly by surface
water runoff, although natural springs may provide minimal flows into the lake. White Pines Lake is
typically operated so that it reaches maximum water level during April. Water is gradually released
year-round to provide a constant supply to the diversion supplying Sheep Ranch WTP. During
October and November, the lake level is usually at its lowest levels.
SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CCWD owns and operates Sheep Ranch WTP. The WTP serves a population of approximately 130
people through 48 service connections and has a capacity of 30 gpm. Water flows from White Pines
Lake into San Antonio Creek, which is the water source for the Sheep Ranch WTP.
Water is diverted from San Antonio Creek at a box diversion structure, where water flows over a
weir and into an intake pipeline. The raw water then flows by gravity to Fricot City for irrigation.
CCWD taps into the pipe at a raw water pump station, which lifts water into the WTP prior to
treatment and discharges to a clearwell. To begin treatment, a coagulant is added prior to filtration.
The chemical is mixed in-line with a static mixer. The water then flows through a 4-foot-diameter,
vertical pressure dual-media filter. From the filter, Chlorine is injected for disinfection and the
water flows directly to the 0.078 MG clearwell. The clearwell provides the detention time needed
for disinfection contact time (CT) credit. No direct connections exist between the filters and the
distribution system.
NEW HOGAN DAM
The New Hogan Dam provides flood protection to the City of Stockton and water for irrigation,
drinking, recreation, and hydroelectric power. New Hogan Dam is an earth filled structure, 200 ft
high and 1,935 ft long, completed in 1964. New Hogan Dam impacts both flows and water quality of
the Calaveras River downstream of the New Hogan Reservoir.
NEW HOGAN RESERVOIR
New Hogan Reservoir, centrally located in the watershed, is the main water storage facility on the
Calaveras River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) operates and maintains the reservoir
for multiple uses, including flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, agricultural
irrigation, and recreation. The reservoir stores 317,100 AF at maximum flood stage. USACOE, the
California Department of Water Resources, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation jointly developed
the operational plan for New Hogan Reservoir.
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-7
CCWD owns and holds the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to the
New Hogan powerhouse located at the base of
New Hogan Dam. The powerhouse is operated
under contract by Modesto Irrigation District.
The power facilities operate on a run-of-the-
river basis. The USACOE and SEWD control the
release of water from New Hogan Dam for flood
control or irrigation, respectively. When
reservoir head and flow release rates are
within operational parameters, the
powerhouse diverts water through the two
turbines. Flows beyond the capability of the
powerhouse are diverted through the dam's
outlet works. Due to the ongoing drought in
California, as of December 2015, New Hogan Reservoir held about 7% of its total capacity of
317,000 AF. Figure 2-3 presents the monthly storage in New Hogan reservoir from January 2011
through December 2015 (Source: CEDEN, 2016).
JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Owned and operated by CCWD, the Jenny Lind WTP is located in the Rancho Calaveras subdivision,
about 3 miles south of Valley Springs. The WTP serves a population of 9,592, through 3,807
connections, and has a capacity of 6 MGD.
The Jenny Lind WTP raw water intake is located on the Calaveras River, about 1 mile downstream
of the New Hogan Reservoir. Raw water for the Jenny Lind WTP is withdrawn from the river
through an infiltration gallery which is periodically backflushed (at least annually) to maintain
hydraulic capacity. Collection pipes are imbedded in the channel bottom and are covered with 1 to
3 feet of rock. The collection pipes route the raw water to the influent pump station. The influent
pump station has three vertical turbine pumps that deliver water to the WTP.
Raw water is pumped to the top of one of two ozone contactors, where it flows by gravity through
the treatment facilities. Ozone can be added to either chamber in each contactor. Sodium
hypochlorite can be added at the raw water pump station if the ozonation facilities are not in
service. CCWD had previously eliminated pre-chlorination to minimize disinfection byproduct
(DBP) formation and added the ozone contactor. In the first ozone contactor in the second chamber,
sodium permanganate is added for iron and manganese removal. Coagulant is added to the water
after exiting the ozone contactor and mixed as it enters the in-line, static mixer. A streaming current
detector controls coagulant addition rate. From the static mixer, the water enters the bottom of the
upflow adsorption clarifier. In the adsorption clarifier, the water passes through a bed of buoyant
adsorption media that provide three treatment processes: coagulation, flocculation, and
clarification. The adsorption clarifier effluent flows into a mixed media filter containing anthracite,
sand, and garnet. Filter effluent is chlorinated, and zinc orthophosphate is added for corrosion
control in the distribution system. Finally water is gravity-fed to the clearwell (0.245-MG capacity).
Water from the clearwell is pumped to a 2-MG storage tank.
Recently there was 70,868 acre wildfire (Butte Fire) in Calaveras/Amador counties, and
approximately 50% of the burned area is in the watershed for New Hogan reservoir and upstream
Figure 2-3 Monthly Storage in New Hogan
Reservoir (2011-2015)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Jan-11
May-11
Sep-11
Jan-12
May-12
Sep-12
Jan-13
May-13
Sep-13
Jan-14
May-14
Sep-14
Jan-15
May-15
Sep-15
AF
Monthly Storage in New Hogan Reservoir
SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-8
of the treatment plant. Because of local soil conditions, runoff from the burned area will have a major impact on raw water quality and the District’s ability to produce drinking water. The primary raw water quality issues are anticipated to be manganese, turbidity, organics and
disinfection byproducts HAA5s and TTHMs in the finished water.
To address impacts to water quality, the District submitted an application and obtained funding
through the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES) and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. As submitted to and approved by Cal-
OES/FEMA, the project is for a pretreatment packaged plant (Actiflo Unit) consisting of rapid sand
mixer, floc tank and sand balasted sedimentation basin. Its estimated total project cost is $3.75
million. The project has been approved and should be complete in 2018.
DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT (DJW WTP)
Owned and operated by SEWD, the DJW WTP serves the City of Stockton and surrounding
unincorporated areas. The most recent population estimate for Stockton is 315,592 (CDOF 2016).
The total population served by the plant is 337,656. SEWD is a wholesaler of treated surface water
to the City of Stockton, the California Water Service Company, and to San Joaquin County.
The DJW WTP has two water sources, the Calaveras River at Bellota and the Stanislaus River via the
Goodwin Reservoir. Water is diverted at the Bellota Weir and flows by gravity in a pipeline to the
WTP. Raw water can also be stored in four on-site reservoirs, with a total capacity of 120 MG.
The DJW WTP has a rated capacity of 65 MGD. Water entering the WTP is first treated with
chlorine gas for disinfection followed by addition of alum and polymer for coagulation. The water
then passes through rapid mix, flocculation, and sedimentation or plate settlers (depending on
treatment train). The settled water flows to dual-media (granular activated carbon [GAC] and
sand) filters. Filter-aid polymer is added to the water prior to filtration. Filter effluent flows
through the finished water conduit, where sodium hydroxide is added to adjust the pH level for
distribution system corrosion control. Chlorine gas is added to the finished water. The water then
flows to a buried, finished water reservoir, from which the water is pumped into the distribution
system.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-1
The chapter begins with a description of the counties in relation to watershed boundaries. A
discussion of water quality parameters of concern is provided as a basis for understanding the risks
or impacts of potential contaminant sources. The potential contaminant sources in the Calaveras
River watershed are summarized in the following format.
CONCERNS: Water quality concerns associated with the potential contaminant source.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES: Land use or activities specific to this watershed along with
general locations.
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES: Agencies responsible for managing the land use or activity and general
practices employed to control the sources.
This chapter does not repeat background information provided in previous WSSs but does include
enough information necessary to provide a stand-alone document.
WATERSHED COUNTIES AND SUBWATERSHEDS
For many of the land uses and activities in the watershed, information is only available by county.
The Calaveras River watershed lies partially within three counties, however, the counties of San
Joaquin and Stanislaus contain less than five percent of the watershed.
Watershed lands within Stanislaus and San Joaquin County are primarily grazing or other low
intensity agriculture use or open space. There are no incorporated cities in the Calaveras River
watershed. Foothill communities (versus mountain) include Jenny Lind, Rancho Calaveras, Valley
Springs, Paloma, and San Andreas. The mountain communities of Mountain Ranch, Sheep Ranch,
and White Pines are in the watershed with Hathoway Pines, Avery, Arnold, and Calaveras Big Trees
State Park straddling the watershed divide with the Stanislaus River watershed.
Figure 3-1 provides a schematic of the watershed and water system facilities. This schematic
identifies the water treatment plant (WTP) subwatersheds: intakes and reservoirs in relation to the
Calaveras River and its tributaries. They do not contain all of the drinking water related facilities,
only those proximate to the treatment plant intakes. When discussing potential contaminate
sources, the water treatment plants or receiving waterbodies were often identified in this chapter
to aid in understanding correlations between contaminant sources and the water quality data
presented in Section 4.
The Calaveras River watershed is comprised of three subwatersheds for each of the three WTP
intakes: Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant (WTP) intake at Bellota, Jenny Lind WTP intake
at Jenny Lind, and Sheep Ranch WTP intake on San Antonio Creek, a tributary of South Fork
Calaveras River. The Bellota and Jenny Lind intakes are on the main stem Calaveras River,
downstream of New Hogan Reservoir. Bellota and Jenny Lind intakes are the downstream end of
two subwatersheds which reflect the entire Calaveras River watershed and are at risk of all
potential contaminants presented here.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-2
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-3
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN
Water quality parameters of greatest concern in the watershed from a drinking water perspective
include the following.
Microorganisms
Disinfection by-product precursors
Turbidity (particulates)
Synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), herbicides, and
metals
These four groupings are described briefly below. A more thorough discussion as they relate to
Calaveras River watershed water quality over the five year study period is provided in Section 4,
Source Water Quality.
MICROORGANISMS
Microbiological organisms of concern as agents of waterborne outbreaks of infectious disease or
indicators of potential contamination in drinking water include gross bacterial measurements (total
coliform, e. coli, HPCs), viruses, and specific pathogens (such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia).
Cryptosporidium and Giardia, are currently the water quality parameters of greatest concern due to
the health risks and the difficulty of treatment. For example, Cryptosporidium strongly resists
chlorine disinfection. Also, there is no maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Cryptosporidium and
Giardia. Utilities demonstrate compliance with drinking water regulations for these two organisms
by meeting specific treatment technique requirements established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of
Drinking Water (DDW).
DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCT PRECURSORS
When chlorine is added in the treatment disinfection process, many chlorinated organic
compounds are formed as the chlorine reacts with the naturally occurring organic matter (NOM)
present in the water. Some of these compounds, referred to as disinfection by-products (DBPs), are
suspected of causing cancer in humans. Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids are
regulated. One important strategy for reducing DBPs is to reduce the amount of NOM present in the
water, if possible. Watershed management to reduce erosion (which carries organic material from
the land into water bodies) and control aquatic plant and algae growth (which generate organic
matter) can provide significant reductions in NOM, and therefore DBP formation. Because NOM
cannot be measured directly, TOC present in the water is typically used as a surrogate
measurement. Bromide in the source waters is of concern because of the reaction with ozone in the
treatment disinfection process to produce bromate (regulated in the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule).
TURBIDITY
Turbidity is a nonspecific measure of suspended matter such as clay, silt, organic particulates,
plankton, and microorganisms. Turbidity is not a specific public health concern, but other
constituents that are of concern can adhere or adsorb onto the surfaces or into the pores of the
particulates. Microorganisms in particular have been known to survive disinfection during
treatment by essentially hiding within the pores of particulates. The presence of turbidity is a
general indicator of surface erosion and runoff into water bodies, resuspension of sediment
material from the stream bed, or biological productivity. Following major storms, water quality is
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-4
degraded by inorganic and organic solids and associated adsorbed contaminants (e.g., metals,
nutrients, and agricultural chemicals) that are resuspended or introduced in runoff.
Turbidity is of concern from a watershed protection perspective primarily because it reduces the
efficiency of disinfection by shielding microorganisms and other contaminants, and it acts as a
vehicle for the transport of contaminants. An increase in raw water turbidity at the treatment plant
increases treatment operations (e.g., higher chemical doses, more frequent filter backwashing,
higher disinfectant dosages), increases the likelihood of TTHMs and other DBPs generated, and can
result in a greater level of risk of pathogens slipping through the treatment process.
SOCS, VOCS, HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES, AND METALS
SOCs and VOCs represent the largest group of water quality parameters currently regulated. Many
VOCs and some SOCs are formulated for or are the result of industrial processes. Pesticides and
herbicides are specifically formulated for their toxic effects on animals and plants. From a public
health perspective, these organics are identified as being or are suspected of being carcinogens,
mutagens, or teratogens. Heavy metals, originating primarily from rocks, minerals, and municipal
and industrial wastes, can have toxic effects on human health if of high enough concentration in the
water or if found in fish consumed by humans.
Table 3-1 provides an overview of the relationship between these water quality parameter groups
and potential contaminant sources in the Calaveras River watershed. The objective of this table is to
provide a basic understanding of the water quality concerns associated with the land uses and
activities.
Table 3-1: Relationship Between Contaminant Sources and Water Quality Concerns
Watershed Activities
Micro-
organisms
DBP
Precursors Turbidity
SOCs, VOCs,
& Metals
Forestry Activities ● ●
Irrigated Agriculture and Pesticides ● ● ●
Livestock ● ● ●
Mining ● ●
Recreation ● ● ● ●
Solid and Hazardous Waste ● ●
Urban Runoff and Spills ● ● ● ●
Wastewater ● ● ● ●
Wildfires ● ● ●
Wildlife ● ● ●
FORESTRY ACTIVITIES
Forestry activities are focused here on timber harvesting. Livestock grazing, off-road vehicles, and
wildfires are addressed in other sections.
CONCERN
Timber harvest operations have the potential to dramatically impact water quality, especially on
pristine lands. Logging and associated road construction may increase the rate of soil erosion,
thereby impacting waterways by increasing turbidity and nutrient loading. Applied herbicides can
contribute SOCs. In addition, flow volumes from the watershed can be significantly altered and may
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-5
show dramatic increases immediately following logging, slowly returning to normal over a period
of years.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Calaveras County reports 143,000 acres of land in timber preserves with 36,257 million board feet
harvested in 2013. This was before the nearby Rim Fire, located within Tuolumne and Mariposa
counties, which resulted in salvage lumber harvesting becoming a priority at the expense of lumber
production within Calaveras County (Calaveras County, 2015a). Timber production in Calaveras
County is primarily found on Stanislaus National Forest lands.
Currently, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) is the only private industry that owns land within the
Stanislaus National Forest. SPI owns approximately 80,000 acres of forest in the Stanislaus National
Forest with about 5,000 acres in the Calaveras River watershed, of which 10 to 20 percent is
harvested annually.
Within the Calaveras River watershed, according to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) there are no timber harvesting plans (THP) and non-industrial timber management
plans initiated at this time. A THP is the environmental review document outlining what timber is
requested to be harvested, how it will be harvested, and steps taken to prevent damage to the
environment. The landowner must replant the area according to the Forest Practice Rules
requirements (CAL FIRE, 2016b).
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
The Forest Service manages timber harvest lands within the Stanislaus National Forest portion of
the watershed. Most timber on Stanislaus National Forest land is harvested on general forest land,
with only small amounts and much more restrictive logging occurring in areas with wilderness,
near natural, wildlife, and wild and scenic river designations. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection implements the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of
1973 by developing forest practice regulations and policy applicable to timber management on
state and private timberlands. CAL FIRE monitors logging activities and enforces laws that regulate
logging on private lands. Together the Board of Forestry and CAL FIRE work to protect and enhance
resources that are not under federal jurisdiction. This includes: major commercial and non-
commercial stands of timber, areas reserved for parks and recreation, and lands in private and state ownership that are a part of California’s forests. Timber harvests of 2 to 1,000 acres are regularly permitted by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE stipulates
conditions under which timber harvest can occur including mitigation for potential water quality
impacts such as providing buffer zones near streams, and implementation of best management
practices (BMPs). Once a timber harvest plan is approved, the landowners are required to
implement erosion control practices. CAL FIRE continues to monitor timber harvest areas for one to
three years to assure that erosion control practices are still in place. Timber harvesting that occurs
near waterbodies containing anadromous fish populations is monitored for erosion control
practices for three years. All owners of private timberland in California must obtain an approved
THP before harvesting of commercial timber species is allowed. This applies to all lands that
contain commercial timber species, regardless of zoning.
In 2015, the Board of Forestry extended regulations to provide exemptions (through 2018) from
requirements for the cutting or removal of dead, dying, or diseased trees of any size. The intent is to
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-6
allow landowners to address fuel conditions made worse by the drought and tree mortality and to
reduce falling hazards associated with deteriorating trees (BOF, 2015).
The SWRCB worked with the Board of Forestry and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board (CVRWQCB) to update Waste Discharge Requirements for federal and non-federal lands to
provide a General Order for timberland management activities. It waives the requirements to
submit a report of waste discharge and obtain waste discharge requirements. On October 8, 2013,
amendments to Public Resources Code went into effect and established a new type of timber
harvesting permit: the Working Forest Management Plan (WFMP). This new permit will allow non-
federal non-industrial landowners of 15,000 acres or less to harvest timber via a non-expiring
permit. The Board of Forestry was required to develop and implement the process for the WFMP by
January 2016; recent litigation between the BOF and stakeholders has delayed the implementation
of the WFMP, which is now anticipated to occur by January 2017. The CVRWQCB recognizes the
need to have a regulatory tool in place to cover the WFMP.
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE AND PESTICIDES
CONCERN
The potential risks to water quality associated with agricultural cultivation are increased erosion,
loss of top soil, and use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Pesticide and herbicide use within
the study area is primarily for agricultural activities but these substances are also frequently
applied to forest lands, rights-of-way, and median strips by Calaveras County maintenance staff.
The pervious surfaces of agricultural lands absorb contaminants and runoff during precipitation
events. However, when soils are saturated or the surface is impervious, storm events result in
runoff from these lands conveyed as sheetflow or concentrated flows eroding the ground surface
and stream banks. High loadings of suspended solids into waterbodies result in high turbidity
levels containing pesticides and herbicides, and DBP precursors. Plowing and grading fields,
particularly on windy days, can cause the suspension of particles with atmospheric transport into
waterbodies. Soils with poor drainage characteristics may have higher runoff potential than more
permeable soils. Drip irrigation systems typically generate little or no runoff. If well managed, drip
irrigation minimizes irrigation season pesticide runoff from treated sites.
When herbicides and pesticides are applied, they can enter waterbodies by runoff from the land
due to stormwater flows or flood irrigation, overspray, or wind transport during application. These
chemicals are also applied aerially by crop dusters. Improper use and over-application of
pesticides, as well as over-irrigating, also can cause runoff of sediment and pesticides to surface
waters or can seep into groundwater. Sediment, pesticides, and excess nutrients can also affect
aquatic habitats by causing eutrophication, turbidity, temperature increases, toxicity, and
decreased oxygen.
Pesticide/herbicide use is categorized by season of application, with application occurring either
during the irrigation or dormant season. During the dormant season, organophosphate pesticides
are carried to surface water by stormwater runoff. Pesticide residues deposited on trees and on the
ground migrate with runoff water during rain events. Although practices are available to minimize
pesticide drift, once pesticides enter the atmosphere through volatilization, only natural
degradation limits their movement and fallout during rainstorms. Pesticides applied during the
dormant season, from December through February, are periodically washed off fields by storms
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-7
large enough to generate runoff. For the San Joaquin River Basin, studies have shown that the
amount of pesticide washed off is usually a very small fraction of the amount applied, ranging
between 0.05 and 0.13 percent for diazinon and 0.06 to 0.08 percent for chlorpyrifos, but it is
sufficient to cause toxicity to aquatic invertebrates (CVRWQCB, 2005)
In addition to the amount of pesticide applied, other factors affect the amount of pesticide in storm
runoff and pesticide loading. Soils with poor drainage characteristics may have higher runoff
potential than more permeable soils, and field slope, the presence and type of cover crop, and
antecedent moisture conditions also affect transport mechanisms. Irrigation methods affect the
magnitude of pesticide loading in the river. With furrow or flood irrigation, tailwater drains from
the end of the field and is usually discharged to a drainage channel that leads to a stream. In some
cases, systems are in place to recycle tailwater to another field, or to blend it with fresh irrigation
water and reapply it to another field. Tailwater return flows from flood and furrow irrigation
probably generate the largest loads because large volumes of water are discharged directly.
Relative to flood and furrow irrigation, sprinkler irrigation is likely to increase pesticide wash-off
from foliage, but will generate less tailwater if used appropriately. Drip irrigation systems typically
generate little or no runoff. If appropriately used, such irrigation methods are likely to minimize
pesticide runoff from treated sites during the irrigation season.
Illegal marijuana farms are of concern because of the lack of control of chemicals used in illicit
activities resulting in SOCs, hydrocarbons, herbicides, and pesticides making their way to
waterbodies by illegal dumping or septic disposal.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE. Agriculture in the Calaveras River watershed includes a diverse list of
crops, including field crops, apiaries, fruit and nut crops, livestock, poultry, and wine grapes.
Agricultural production in the region is primarily located on lands in San Joaquin and Stanislaus
counties with smaller areas under production in Calaveras County. There are several vineyards in
the watershed within the vicinity of the Calaveras River and its tributaries. Agricultural land use in
the lower elevations is predominantly rangeland; cattle grazing is discussed under Livestock.
The latest crop reports for Calaveras County indicate that the demand and prices for agricultural
crops have remained strong. According to the latest crop report (2014), wine grapes and English
walnuts are the top commodities after livestock in Calaveras County. Table 3-2 presents crop
acreages for the entire Calaveras County. The decrease in acreage over time may be due to the
ongoing drought.
Table 3-2: Crop Production Acreage - Calaveras County
Crop 2011 2012 2013 2014
Grapes (Wine) 900 910 910 900
Hay, Grain 400 300 300 200
Olives 140 140 130 130
Organic Farming 55 55 85 87
Walnuts 800 775 775 788 Source: Calaveras County, 2013 and 2015. Note: acreages are for entire county.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-8
PESTICIDE AND HERBICIDES. Reports of controlled pesticide and herbicide use are submitted to the
California Agricultural Commissioner monthly providing chemical use, quantities, etc. Statewide,
farmers have reduced pesticide use over time. This shift has been influenced by more stringent
regulations from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). Other contributors to
the shift towards reduced pesticide use include increased pesticide costs, choices made by the
farmers to make economical and safety decisions, a small shift towards organic farming, and efforts
made by the local resource conservation districts.
Table 3-3 presents the overall pounds of pesticides used in Calaveras County 2011 through 2014;
usage includes lands in the Calaveras River watershed as well as the rest of the county. Pesticide
usage varies year to year depending on pest problems, weather, acreage and types of crops planted,
economics, and other factors.
Table 3-3: Pesticide Quantities
Pounds Applied
2011 2012 2013 2014
Calaveras
County 78,438 40,532 29,380 58,683
Source: CDPR, 2015a. Year 2015 not yet available. Note: pounds are for entire county.
The top five pesticides used in Calaveras County and the pounds applied are presented in Table 3-4.
Glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Round-up and is the most commonly used herbicide in the
United States. Methylated soybean oil is an adjuvant, a substance added to improve herbicidal
activity. Alpha-(para-nonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) is a detergent sanitizer used
in dairy food industry. Sulfur is the primary chemical used for wine grapes; it is applied as a
fungicide against powdery mildew. Strychnine is used to kill small vertebrates such as birds and
rodents.
Illegal cannabis farms were not observed during the survey site visit. Water quality contamination
associated with illegal farming is typically in rural mountainous areas with workers sleeping on-site
to protect the high value crops and liberal use of rodenticides. The concern of illegal cannabis farms
in the watershed (versus legal growing in which farmers report chemical usage to the County of
Calaveras as with other crops) differ from other crops because illegal activities are not accountable:
excessive use of pesticides and herbicides or use of banned rodenticides and other pesticides is
typically found with discovered illegal farms.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Programs established to control nonpoint source pollution from agriculture include joint efforts by
local, state, and federal agencies. The SWRCB oversees the statewide nonpoint source program,
with assistance from CDPR for pesticide usage. As described later under Livestock, the SWRCB
regulates agricultural runoff through its nonpoint source program. CDPR protects human health
and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and by fostering reduced-risk pest
management. CDPR requires full use reporting of all agricultural pesticide use and structural pesticides applied by professional applicators. CDPR works closely with California’s county agricultural commissioners, who serve as the primary enforcement agents for state pesticide laws
and regulations. County agricultural commissioners regulate pesticide use to prevent misapplica-
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-9
Table 3-4: Top Five Pesticides Used - 2014
Pesticide Commodity Pounds Acres
Glyphosate, Isopropylamine
Salt
Forest, Timberland 2,521 992
Rangeland - -
Walnut 291 259
Grape, Wine 287 253
Industrial Site - -
Landscape Maintenance - -
Rights-of-Way 1,490 77
Uncultivated Non-ag 159 57
All Other Sites 1,844 152
Total 6,591 1,789
Methylated Soybean Oil
Forest, Timberland 2,989 764
Rangeland 12 250
Walnut 44 157
Grape, Wine 43 90
Rights-of-Way 301 60
All Other Sites 18 28
Total 3,407 1,349
alpha-(para-nonylphenyl)-
omega-
hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)
Forest, Timberland 275 474
Rangeland 55 425
Walnut 15 199
Grape, Wine 6 92
Pistachio 10 66
Apple - -
Pear - -
All Other Sites 240 83
Total 602 1,339
Sulfur Grape, Wine 7,436 989
Total 7,436 989
Strychnine
Forest, Timberland 1 901
Grape, Wine <1 64
Rangeland <1 10
Walnut <1 9
All Other Sites <1 -
Total 2 984
All Other AIS 40,645 7,665
Total Pesticide Usage 58,683 13,360
Source: CDPR, 2015a
tion or drift, and possible contamination of people or the environment. County agricultural
commissioner staff also enforce regulations to protect groundwater and surface water from
pesticide contamination.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-10
Farmers must obtain site-specific permits from their county agricultural commissioner to purchase
and use many agricultural chemicals. The commissioner must evaluate the proposed application to
determine whether it is near a sensitive area, such as wetlands, residential neighborhoods, schools,
or organic fields. State law requires commissioners to ensure that applicators take precautions to
protect people and the environment. Based on this evaluation, the county agricultural
commissioner may deny the permit or require specific use practices to mitigate any hazards. For
example, a permit may be contingent upon the method of application, time of day, weather
conditions, and use of buffer zones. Part of the commissioner’s duty in issuing a permit is to decide the need for a particular pesticide and whether a safer pesticide or better method of application can
be used and still prove effective.
In 2016, Calaveras County began the process of establishing requirements to regulate the growing
of medical marijuana/cannabis. The final regulations and management controls for water quality
will be addressed in the next WSS update.
Local governments such as the county Department of Agriculture and local resource conservation
districts play an active role in influencing practices of agricultural activities. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the University of California
Cooperative Extension Service provide technical and financial services for farmers. NRCS typically
provides conservation assistance through a nationwide network of resource conservation districts
(RCD) and local offices. Calaveras County does not have a RCD.
The NRCS works to help landowners, as well as federal, state, tribal, and local governments, and
community groups, conserve natural resources on private land. The NRCS has three strategies to
implement their goals of: high quality, productive soils; clean and abundant water; healthy plant
and animal communities; clean air; an adequate energy supply; and working farms and ranchlands.
Cooperative conservation: seeking and promoting cooperative efforts to achieve conservation
goals.
Watershed approach: providing information and assistance to encourage and enable locally-led,
watershed-scale conservation.
Market-based approach: facilitating the growth of market-based opportunities that encourage
the private sector to invest in conservation on private lands.
LIVESTOCK
CONCERN
Livestock can contribute microbial contaminants to a waterbody when feces are deposited directly
into the water or when runoff carries feces into the water; calves younger than six months appear
to be the most likely to shed Cryptosporidium oocysts. Pathogens are more difficult to treat than
pesticides and herbicides and there is a public health risk associated with pathogens. Within the
Calaveras River watershed, the Jenny Lind WTP uses ozone as a primary disinfectant which
significantly lowers the risk of a Cryptosporidium outbreak.
Animal waste includes ammonia, nitrates, salts, pathogens, and pharmaceuticals such as ceftiofur,
penicillin, and sulfa drugs (CDFA, 2015). The nitrogen and phosphorous can contribute to the
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-11
eutrophication of waterbodies and excessive algal growth; increased nutrient levels also increase
treatment costs.
In addition to microbial contamination, livestock can increase erosion causing particulate, turbidity,
and DBP precursor problems if they are allowed to overgraze an area and remove the vegetative
cover, compact soils, or are given direct access to a waterbody. Reduced vegetative cover and
compaction from animal trails can reduce stormwater infiltration resulting in increased runoff,
which increases soil erosion. Increased sedimentation can cause high turbidity reaching treatment
plants. Suspended soil particles can absorb and transport other pollutant to the intakes.
Contamination risks of rangeland grazing are associated with two primary activities: cattle
concentrating at waterbodies and storm events delivering runoff to waterbodies. Livestock with
access to waterbodies can directly deposit manure and its associated contaminants in the streams
and can disturb the shoreline and riparian vegetation resulting in erosion during precipitation
events. Cattle access streams and reservoirs when there are no water improvements to encourage
them to drink elsewhere, and water stations can be expensive to provide in rangelands with limited
water access as an alternative. Thus the risk of contamination is greater without water provisions.
Risks of loading viable Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts into waterbodies from rangeland cattle are
greatest during storm events because sheet flow from grazed areas transports sediment, along with
organic matter, nutrients, and pathogenic microorganisms from the manure. Check dams on small
water courses create watering spots for grazing cattle which can overflow during rainfall events,
releasing pathogens to waterbodies. In addition, if irrigated pasture is not properly managed,
irrigation water could run off the site and into waterways.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Land use in the Calaveras River watershed lower elevations (which could impact the Jenny Lind
WTP and Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP) is predominantly non-irrigated land used for cattle grazing. In
2014, Calaveras County had 198,000 acres of rangeland with 2,000 acres of irrigated pasture
(Calaveras County, 2015). Rangeland cattle typically include raising cows for breeding and raising
steers for sale.
Livestock grazing in the upper watershed began regulation in the Stanislaus National Forest in
1905 and on private lands, including SPI lands. The Stanislaus National Forest has had cattle
grazing in the summers (July to September) since the 1950s. During winter months, cattle are
moved to lower elevations. As summer approaches cattle are progressively moved to higher
elevations. Cattle graze in low densities throughout the watershed, depending on the terrain and
vegetation. Ranchers protect grazing areas in order to maintain permit status, the long term health
of their herd, and the availability of a healthy grazing environment.
Cattle appear to have either direct access to waterbodies or are grazing on lands that drain to
waterbodies that convey water to water treatment plant intakes. Grazing historically occurred
around New Hogan Reservoir from November through May but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(US ACE) eliminated most grazing on its lands. Grazing still occurs on lands adjacent to and with
direct access to the North Fork Calaveras River on private lands upstream of the confluence of the
North Fork and South Fork.
As presented in Table 3.5, cattle numbers in Calaveras County has declined since 2011. These data
represent the entire county, not just the study area watershed.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-12
Table 3-5: Cattle in Calaveras County
2011 2012 2013 2014
Beef Cows 9,000 9,300 7,900 7,800
Source: CDFA, 2016b. California Agricultural Statistics Review, 2011 through 2014.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Runoff from grazed land is considered a non-point source of pollution and requires compliance with the SWRCB’s Non-Point Source Program, a program under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act requiring permits for anyone discharging waste that could affect water quality in the
State. Typical BMPs to keep cattle from waterbodies include the provision of salt licks located away
from waterbodies, dedicated watering containers, and fencing of streams. Grazing provides the
benefit of reducing fire fuels. Fuels management can greatly reduce the impact of wildland fires in
the watershed.
Grazing is extensive on federal lands owned by the Forest Service and U. S. Bureau of Land
Management. Grazing on federal lands is governed by the Water Quality Management Plan for
National Forest System Lands in California. This plan utilizes range management BMPs including
range analysis and planning, grazing permits, and rangeland improvements.
Forest Service initiated a water quality monitoring pilot program in response to concerns regarding
cattle grazing and water quality. Forest Service study is investigating microbial contamination,
nutrients, and temperature, as well as overall livestock impacts, such as streambank alteration. In
the first year of the study, 2010, the focus was on the Stanislaus River. Forest Service monitored
creeks upstream and downstream of recreation sites and cattle grazing sites. The 2010 study found
that the coliform data were below EPA and CVRWQCB standards in all the recreation sites. Forest
Service expanded the program in conjunction with the University of California at Davis and
produced a report on the results of the analysis. The documented results are provided in Appendix
A. The conclusions were that cattle grazing, recreation, and provisioning of clean water can be
compatible goals on national forest lands.
The Rangeland Water Quality Management Program developed by UC Cooperative Extension, Cattlemen’s Association, and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, continues to be used as a voluntary management program for private grazing lands. The training supports ranchers to
develop and implement water quality management plans and BMPs on their lands.
MINING
CONCERN
Active, inactive, abandoned, and unknown mining operations can contribute elevated levels of
mercury, arsenic, copper, and other metals to waterbodies. Instream suction dredge mining is
currently prohibited and is not discussed here. The risk with active mines is associated with
accidental discharges. Sand and gravel resource extraction can result in elevated levels of turbidity
and sedimentation if berms separating mining activities from waterbodies are breached or if fuels
from equipment leak.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-13
Abandoned mines pose the greatest risk to water quality by contributing high levels of metals from
exposed soils and tailings transported through runoff. Abandoned mines are not only hazards to the
public, but if accessed by the public typically have extensive trash left behind, including cans and
flashlight and lantern batteries.
There is little known about the capability and risks of unknown mines to contribute contaminated
runoff and sediment. Historical mining operations had little regard for environmental impacts and
the sites did not require reclamation plans when operations ceased as they do presently.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Most of the mines within the watershed are inactive historic gold mines in the foothills and higher
elevations. Historically, the resources mined in Calaveras County include copper, gold, limestone,
and limestone products. Many of the old workings and tailings piles have drastically altered the river’s course and flow. In more recent years, asbestos, gold, industrial minerals, limestone, and sand and gravel have been the most active segments of the county’s mineral industry. Within the watershed, placer and hard rock mining has occurred along the lower Calaveras River,
from the confluence with Cosgrove Creek below New Hogan Reservoir to the South Gulch area
below Jenny Lind WTP (within the Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP watershed). The disturbed lands around
South Gulch are extensive and are from historical and active mining operations. Acres of mine
tailings can be found northwest of Milton, along Milton Road.
Active and idle mines within the Calaveras River watershed are listed in Table 3-6. The State
Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation periodically publishes a list of active, idle,
and closed mines regulated under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 that meet provisions set forth under California’s Public Resources Code. Table 3-6: Active Mines – Calaveras River Watershed
Mine Name Commodity Proximate Waterbody
E. I. G. Mine Pumice San Domingo Creek
All Rock Sand & Gravel Calaveritas Creek
Quarry #6 Limestone South Fork Calaveras
Hogan Quarry Stone Upstream of Jenny Lind
Intake
Jenny Lind Tailing Pile
Removal
Stone Upstream of Bellota Intake
Jenny Lind Aggregate Quarry Sand & Gravel Upstream of Bellota Intake
Robbie Ranch Sand & Gravel Upstream of Bellota Intake
Snyder Clay Pit Clay New Hogan Reservoir
Chili Gulch Quarry Rock New Hogan Reservoir
John Hertzig Sand & Gravel Lead New Hogan Reservoir
Source: CDOC, 2016; proximity to waterbodies approximated by author
The Calaveras Cement Company on Pool Station Road near San Andreas and Hogan Quarry
downstream of New Hogan Dam have CVRWQCB permits (i.e., Waste Discharge Requirements).
Calaveras Cement Company mines limestone and the site drains to the South Fork Calaveras River.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-14
Hogan Quarry is a hard rock aggregate mining and processing facility. There are no unpermitted
facilities in the watershed.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ACTIVE AND INACTIVE MINES. In Calaveras County, all mineral extraction operations require mining
use permit approval prior to commencement of operations. Calaveras County then examines
project specific impacts from the operation. Active mines are usually allowed only inert or
nonhazardous waste releases; mining operations can meet these conditions by controlling the
acidity of their discharges and by implementing other management practices.
The CVRWQCB Mining Program oversees discharge of mining waste from active and inactive mines.
Discharges from active mines are regulated through the issuance of waste discharge requirements
and will usually include all surface impoundments, tailing ponds, and waste piles. Regulations have
prescriptive and performance standards for waste containment, monitoring, and closure. Inactive
and abandoned mines that are threatening or impacting surface and groundwater are regulated by
Title 27, SWRCB Order #92-49 and other laws and regulations for closure of mine sites and cleanup.
METHYL MERCURY. In 2010, SWRCB began a process to develop a statewide mercury control
program for reservoirs. The three main goals of the program are as follows.
1. Reduce fish methyl mercury concentrations in reservoirs determined to be mercury-
impaired
2. Have a control program in place for reservoirs in the future determined to be mercury
impaired.
3. Protect reservoirs not currently mercury impaired from becoming mercury impaired.
New Hogan Reservoir was listed under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) as a mercury impaired
reservoir. This reservoir is listed in the SWRCB’s draft Phase I Statewide Mercury Control Program
to address mercury in reservoirs. Phase I will include pilot tests to manage water chemistry in
reservoirs (e.g., oxidant addition to reservoir bottom waters, sediment removal or encapsulation,
etc.) and to manage fishers to reduce bioaccumulation (e.g., intensive fishing, changes to fish
stocking practices). The mercury control program is also intended to address the cleanup of mine
sites upstream of mercury-impaired reservoirs, and work with California Air Resources Board to
reduce atmospheric deposition of mercury.
RECREATION
CONCERN
Recreational use of a waterbody poses a wide range of water quality risks, depending on the
specific activity, proximity to intakes, and loadings. For example, body contact activities introduce
microorganisms; microorganisms are of greater concern from houseboat waste because of the
accidental release of large volumes of waste directly into a waterbody. Power boating contributes
VOCs and allows boaters to access remote areas of a reservoir with no restroom facilities. Shoreline
access can increase erosion, causing turbidity, particulate contributions, and DBP precursors.
Marinas can have accidental discharges into waterbodies as a result of resort and marina
operations; these loadings would likely be much greater than for individual boats, but less
frequently spilled. Activities such as the refueling of boats, storage of fuel, pumping houseboat
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-15
wastes, launching of boats, and maintenance of facilities (including cleaning and washing of boats)
can result in pollutants being discharged to a waterbody.
Illegal dumping could include food waste, hazardous and other materials. Illegal camping generally
results in the improper disposal of fecal waste.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Recreation is a significant activity in the Calaveras River watershed which includes access to
Stanislaus National Forest and Calaveras Big Trees State Park. Recreational opportunities
throughout the watershed, but primarily at New Hogan Reservoir, include swimming, boating,
fishing, waterskiing, and non-water contact activities such as camping, hiking, picnicking, wine
tasting, and sightseeing. There are several public and private owned reservoirs in the watershed.
Recreational use, with body contact, of the Calaveras River and its tributaries occurs throughout the
length of the river, concentrated at access points. A discussion of recreational activities associated
with specific sites in the watershed is provided along with a discussion of unauthorized activities.
Because the Stanislaus National Forest has minimal land within the Calaveras River watershed with
no organized recreational facilities, it is not discussed here.
CALAVERAS BIG TREES STATE PARK. Calaveras Big Trees State Park, operated by the California State
Department of Parks and Recreation, is located within both the Stanislaus River and Calaveras
River watersheds. The park has several campgrounds; North Grove campground and two group
campgrounds are all within the Calaveras River watershed located near the park entrance. The
group campgrounds are north of Highway 4. North Grove has 73 campsites for tents and
recreational vehicles (RV). Different facilities open at different times during the year, but the park is
closed from December to February and the restrooms are closed November through April.
North Grove campground is located on Big Trees Creek which drains across Highway 4 to White
Pines Lake. No swimming is allowed in Big Trees Creek. Other activities available at the park
include hiking, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing. The park averages 194,000 visitors per year
(State Parks, 2016).
The North Grove campground, visitor center, ranger office, day use area, and Jack Knight Hall is
served by a septic tank and leachfield. The park also has vault toilets. There are six pit toilets
available in the environmental (tent) campsites. An RV sanitation station is located near the park
entrance (State Parks, 2015). The North Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant is one of eight
wastewater treatment facilities within the Calaveras Big Trees State Park. The plant receives waste
from the campgrounds, RV/trailer dump stations, and the visitor center. The effluent collection
system includes a 20,000-gal septic tank and 3,400 linear feet of piping. Collected wastewater is
sent to a clearwell where it can be directed to a pump station and then to a leachfield, or sent to the
sprayfield disposal area. The site drains to San Antonio Creek, upstream of the Sheep Ranch WTP.
WHITE PINES LAKE. White Pines Lake is on San Antonio Creek near Arnold and is the headwaters for
the Sheep Ranch WTP. Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) owns White Pines Lake and a band
of property around the lake, 95.4 acres in total. CCWD leases 80 acres of its property to White Pines
Park and to the Friends of the Logging Museum. The reservoir was once surrounded by a lumber
mill; Sierra Nevada Logging Museum is located by the reservoir. CCWD also leases portions of the
White Pines property to the Courtright Emerson Ballpark and to the local Moose Lodge.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-16
Volunteers operate White Pines Community Park as a private park. The Park has fishing, 40 picnic
tables, 25 barbecues, softball field, beach, and a playground. There is no motorized boating but
hand launched fishing boats and canoes are allowed. Both body contact and non-body contact (e.g.,
boating) recreation are permitted. Low speed boating (no motors), kayaking, and canoeing are
allowed on the reservoir with access available at a public boat launch. White Pines Park has no
marina services or boat fuel. Park entry is free, so no usage statistics are available. However, the 60
parking spaces are full all summer and, on weekends, parking spills out into the adjacent
neighborhood. The Arnold Rim Trail leads south from the reservoir 10.5 miles to Sheep Ranch Road
near Avery.
NEW HOGAN RESERVOIR. New Hogan Reservoir is located in the oak and brush covered foothills of
the Sierra Nevada. When full, the reservoir has 50 miles of shoreline which extends nearly eight
miles upstream to the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Calaveras River. The reservoir
has multiple areas of day and overnight use, including camping, boating, waterskiing, hiking and
mountain bike trails, a disc golf course, equestrian trails, and swimming. Wrinkle Cove is a popular
swimming area of the reservoir. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) allows pets in
recreation areas, and posts park rules in public areas. Boat launching is available at four public boat
ramps. No marina services or boat fuel are available. Hunting of turkey, quail, dove, and waterfowl
with a bow or shotgun is allowed on most of the US ACE lands, except the northwest side of the
reservoir.
Camping and picnicking are allowed in designated areas. Picnic sites are located in Fiddleneck Day
Use Area and at the New Hogan Dam Observation Point near the Park Headquarters. The area is
also a staging area for an eight mile equestrian trail on a scenic loop that winds along the reservoir
and through the foothill chaparral. Visitation at New Hogan Reservoir averages 300,000 visitors
annually (ACOE, 2016).
The three developed campgrounds include approximately 250 campsites with toilet facilities, both
permanent and portable. Acorn East and Acorn West have flush toilets, while Oak Knoll is more
primitive. A group campground is also available at Coyote Point. Thirty boat-in campsites at Deer
Flat are available on a first-come first-serve basis from May through September. There is a full-scale
golf course to the northwest. Golf course lands drain to the Calaveras River below the dam and
upstream of the Jenny Lind intake.
The New Hogan Lake Recreation Area has vault, chemical, and flush toilets. The chemical toilets are
pumped regularly. The pit toilets are self-contained, and are also pumped regularly. Sewage from
the flush toilets is piped to holding tanks. The liquid is pumped out to settling/evaporation ponds.
This facility operates under a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit.
LESS FORMAL RECREATION AREAS. There are numerous access points allowing public access to the
water along the North Fork and South Fork Calaveras River and its major tributaries Jesus Maria
Creek, Calaveritas Creek, and San Antonio Creek. The Arnold Rim Trail by White Pines is open year
round.
UNAUTHORIZED USES. Unauthorized activities that may be potential contaminant sources include:
illegal dumping, illegal drug manufacture and manufacturing waste disposal, unauthorized
discharge into a surface water, and unsanctioned recreational activities (e.g., off-road vehicle use or
illegal camping).
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-17
No significant illegal or unauthorized activities occur at the reservoirs in the watershed; activities
that do occur are well controlled. Within Calaveras Big Trees State Park occasional dumping of
trash does occur and is cleaned up by park maintenance staff. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is not
allowed, and are prevented from entering the State Park at the three entrance stations. Occasionally
an unauthorized woodcutter is encountered. The rangers patrol all areas of the park frequently. The
Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation, especially impacts from motor vehicles, as one of the key threats facing the nation’s forests today. In addition, OHV impacts have created unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacted cultural
resources sites (Forest Service, 2016).
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Calaveras Big Trees State Park is managed by the California State Parks. The US ACE rangers and
Calaveras County Sheriff's Department deputies patrol all areas of New Hogan Lake Recreation
Area. Unauthorized activities are stopped at the entrances or are identified and stopped during
patrols.
White Pines Park is managed by a volunteer organization. CCWD, however, owns the land and
ensures that water quality is not jeopardized. Body contact is not allowed in Big Trees Creek in
Calaveras Big Trees State Park nor in White Pines Lake (although not enforced), greatly reducing
risk of pathogen contamination to the Sheep Ranch WTP.
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
CONCERN
Waste disposal facilities may result in groundwater contamination (which may seep to surface
water) even after a site has been closed. Therefore, both open and closed waste disposal facilities
were investigated.
Authorized municipal solid waste disposal sites are permitted and monitored and are unlikely to be
a significant source of contamination under normal operation. However, improper maintenance,
negligent operation, or natural disasters, such as a fire followed by rainfall, may lead to the release
of leachate containing bacteria, pathogens, metals, or other contaminants. Solid waste from the
treatment dewatering process (filter wash water and sludge lagoons) at water treatment plants and
wastewater treatment plants is stored in ponds adjacent to the treatment facilities for off-site
disposal or land application. These lagoons are designed to have adequate capacity; capacity
exceedance is infrequent and associated with extreme precipitation events. Runoff from
composting facilities composting green waste can contain nutrients and TOC associated with stored
materials in stages of decomposition. Stormwater permits are required for composting facilities.
Underground storage tanks (UST) and other spills, leaks, investigations and cleanup sites all pose a
threat to water quality. While the majority of gasoline and chemical spills will usually be of greatest
concern for groundwater quality, runoff and groundwater plumes from contaminated sites can also
impact surface waters. Precipitation may wash superficial surface spills into nearby drainages,
which may eventually flow into larger streams, rivers, reservoirs, etc. Moreover, contaminated
groundwater plumes may flow to lower elevations (from the spill site) and re-emerge, contributing
contaminated water to large waterbodies such as reservoirs.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-18
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
LANDFILLS. The San Andreas transfer station, located in the watershed’s northeastern area, is used
for the consolidation of waste before transfer to solid waste disposal sites located outside the
watershed area. Separate bins are available for recycling. Yard waste, tires and appliances with
Freon must be segregated for recycling and are not allowed to be dumped with household trash. No
other solid or hazardous waste disposal facilities are located in the Calaveras River watershed.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS. As of March 2016, there are 185 leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) open and closed clean-up sites in Calaveras County and 224 sites in Tuolumne County. The
open (active and inactive) and closed LUSTs within the Calaveras River watershed are presented in
Table 3-7. Open cases include site remediation, monitoring, and assessment.
Table 3-7: Leaking Underground Storage Sites
Community Open/Active Open/Inactive Closed
Arnold 0 0 17
Camp Connell 0 0 3
Dorrington 0 0 1
Hathaway Pines 0 0 2
Jenny Lind 0 0 3
Mountain Ranch 0 0 3
Rancho Calaveras 0 1 0
San Andreas 3 1 22
Sheep Ranch 0 0 3
Valley Springs 2 1 8
White Pines 0 0 1
Source: SWRCB, 2016a
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), under the California Environmental
Protection Agency, manages landfills within California. The CIWMB is the state agency designated
to oversee, manage, and track California's 92 million tons of waste generated each year. Landfills
are also subject to CVRWQCB waste discharge requirements. The CIWMB provides funds to clean
up solid waste disposal sites and co-disposal sites (those accepting both hazardous waste
substances and nonhazardous waste). These funds are available where the responsible party
cannot be identified, or is unable or unwilling to pay for a timely remediation, and where cleanup is
needed to protect public health and safety or the environment.
Underground storage tanks are permitted and regulated by the environmental health departments
for Calaveras County and Tuolumne County. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
typically handles cases in which a leaking storage tank is involved. Cases are monitored closely for
remediation activities and are not closed until the leak is properly remediated.
The CVRWQCB requires a permit to install a UST. BMPs should be in place by the UST owners to
ensure the safety of the tank. Such BMPs include secondary containment devices, monitoring wells
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-19
and proper maintenance. Many of these sites are former industrial facilities and dry cleaners, where
chlorinated solvents were spilled, or have leaked into the soil or groundwater.
The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) was established by the State to improve the
coordination of hazardous materials management. The following agencies are identified as the
representative CUPA in the watershed.
Calaveras County Environmental Health Department
San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department
Stanislaus County Environmental Resources
The county CUPAs consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative
requirements for the following hazardous waste and hazardous materials programs.
Hazardous Materials Disclosure
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Underground Storage Tank Program
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks
Hazardous Waste Generator
URBAN RUNOFF AND SPILLS
CONCERN
Stormwater runoff from paved highways and streets, vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance
wastes, outdoor washing, and parking lots contain many pollutants associated with automobiles
such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals (e.g., lead, cadmium, and copper), asbestos, and rubber. Urban
runoff from landscaped areas and impervious surfaces contribute pesticides, herbicides, and
nutrients; sediment; trash; bacteria and pathogens; and metals such as copper, zinc, and nickel.
Runoff drains into storm drains, which convey untreated water into a local stream, eventually
making its way to the Calaveras River or reservoirs.
Sources of fecal contamination in urban runoff include domestic and wild animals, in addition to
human sources from illegal camping, illicit connections, or dumping to the storm drain system,
septic system leaks, or sewage spills. Since fecal coliforms are used as indicators of fecal
contamination, their presence (as evidenced by those communities that monitor runoff) indicates
that urban runoff typically carries a significant amount of fecal material into waterbodies. The
actual amount of pathogens (or risk to human health) from urban runoff cannot be extrapolated
from indicator organism data.
Automobile, truck, watercraft, and marina accidents can result in spilled cargo content or vehicle
fuel spills to waterbodies. Leaked or spilled hazardous materials, petroleum products (gasoline,
motor oil), or other fluids can introduce SOCs, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons into a waterbody
from runoff, vehicles driving into waterbodies, watercraft malfunctioning or sinking, etc. Hazardous
waste spills pose a direct or potentially direct threat to water quality. Sewage spills from sewer overflows and milk trucks result in pathogen contamination, including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Transported hazardous materials could include fuel, pesticides, solvents, and a variety of
other materials.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-20
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Drainage directly to the Calaveras River, reservoirs, and tributaries is of greatest concern near
intakes because of the lack of blending and time before the contaminants reach the WTPs. Runoff
concerns, and spills and accidental releases are discussed here.
STORMWATER RUNOFF. There are approximately 13 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater permittees in the Calaveras River watershed. Dischargers must comply with
NPDES stormwater discharge permits issued individually to each facility. Table 3-8 lists the
permittees that have had enforcement actions or violations within the past five years.
Table 3-8: NPDES Stormwater Permittees with Enforcement Actions or Violations
Facility Name Order No. Regulatory
Measure Community Waterbody
Effective
Date
All Rock
Aggregates
2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater
Industrial
San Andreas Calaveritas Creek 3/30/1992
Calaveras Cement
Company
2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater
Industrial
San Andreas South Fork
Calaveras
4/6/1992
Calaveras Unified
School District
2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater
Industrial
San Andreas New Hogan
Reservoir
1/30/2013
Valley Springs
Recycling Inc.
2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater
Industrial
Valley Springs Cosgrove Creek 9/16/2013
Gold Creek
Woodgate Estates
2009-0009-DWQ Stormwater
Construction
Valley Springs Cosgrove Creek 4/15/2016
Khosla Residence 2009-009-DWQ Stormwater
Construction
Sheep Ranch San Antonio Creek
above Sheep
Ranch WTP
2/5/2008
Source: SWRCB, 2016b.
SPILLS. Hazardous materials spills include sewer overflows, fuel spills from vehicle and boating
accidents, and other spills reported to the State Office of Emergency Services.
Four California State Highways traverse the Calaveras River watershed: Highway 49 (north-south),
and the west-east alignments of Highway 4, Highway 26, and a short stretch of Highway 12. These
four highways are major thoroughfares through the Sierra Nevada, but primarily serving inter- and
intra-county traffic.
As shown in Figure 2-1, Highway 4 enters the watershed north of Copperopolis, leaves the
watershed at the north end of the City of Angels Camp, then enters again and follows the watershed
divide between the Calaveras River and Stanislaus River watersheds between Red Apple Drive and
Camp Connell. Depending on where a spill occurs, the spill on Highway 4 could impact Calaveras
River tributaries or drain to the south out of the watershed. To the east of the watershed, Highway
4 is closed often from November through April along the summit of Ebbetts Pass. Highway 4 is not
plowed east of the Mount Reba turnoff near Alpine Lake. A spill along Highway 4 could drain to San
Domingo Creek along most of its alignment in the watershed, and possibly San Antonio Creek and
While Pines Lake at the eastern end of the watershed.
Highway 26 enters the watershed in the west at Bellota in San Joaquin County, near the intake for
the DJW WTP. The highway runs parallel to the Calaveras River. It travels east into Calaveras
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-21
County through Rancho Calaveras, Valley Springs, and Paloma; the highway then follows the
drainage divide between the Calaveras River and Mokelumne River watersheds between Paloma,
the southern end of Mokelumne Hill, and Glencoe. Depending on where a spill occurs, the spill on
Highway 26 could impact the North Fork Calaveras River or drain to the north out of the watershed.
State Route 12 enters the watershed at Valley Springs and travels east along Highway 26. When
Highway 26 veers north towards Glencoe, Highway 12 continues east towards San Andreas where
it ends at the junction with Highway 49, just after it crosses the North Fork of the Calaveras River.
Highway 49 enters the watershed from the north at Mokelumne Hill and travels south crossing the
North Fork Calaveras, to the community of San Andreas, then crossing Calaveritas, San Antonio, and
San Domingo creeks before leaving the watershed at the north end of the City of Angels Camp.
Most of the hazardous materials spills, however, are reported are on local streets. Spills are
reported to the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) which records the spill type,
quantity, and location, and whether a waterbody was affected. Table 3-9 provides the number of
reported hazardous material spills in Calaveras County within the Calaveras River watershed
during the previous five years.
Table 3-9: Hazardous Material Spills within the
Calaveras River Watershed
Year Reported Spills
2011 4
2012 8
2013 15
2014 9
2015 10
Average 9 Source: COES, 2016
There were several petroleum products spilled during this time, several reports of perceived septic
system failures, and possible meth lab runoff. But the majority reported were sewer overflows from
blocked lines. There were no spills reported in San Joaquin County or Stanislaus County within the
watershed.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
STORMWATER RUNOFF. Stormwater and dry weather runoff in the Calaveras River watershed is
regulated through the NPDES federal and stormwater permitting process. The NPDES program is
mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act, and administered and enforced in California
by the SWRCB through the RWQCBs. The SWRCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program
regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) that
discharge into waters of the United States. The RWQCB issues Waste Discharge Requirements and
NPDES permits for the discharge of stormwater runoff from MS4s. The permits are reissued
approximately every five years.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-22
The NPDES permits require large and medium municipalities to develop stormwater management
plans and conduct monitoring of stormwater discharges and receiving waters. The permits also
require programs to control runoff from construction sites, industrial facilities, and municipal
operations; eliminate or reduce the frequency of non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater
system; educate the public on stormwater pollution prevention, and better control and treat urban
runoff from new developments. Since 2003, small communities have been required to develop
stormwater management plans, but do not have to conduct monitoring. Small communities are
defined as having a population of at least 10,000, a population density of at least 1,000 persons per
square mile, and lying within an urbanized area.
The new NPDES stormwater permit for industrial activities is effective July 1, 2015. New features
include electronic filing requirements, implementation of stormwater pollution prevention plan
structural and nonstructural BMPs, design storm standards, monitoring requirements, exceedance
response action process.
The CVRWQCB determined that within Calaveras County, selected community areas were
designated as regulated MS4s and Calaveras County is required to comply with the statewide General Permit that was adopted by the SWRCB for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. The MS s include publicly-owned and maintained roadside
ditches, culverts, channels, and related systems for the collection and conveyance of stormwater
runoff. Consistent with these requirements, Calaveras County prepared a Stormwater Management
Plan that identifies potential sources of stormwater pollution from within the county, and includes
a comprehensive program to reduce identified pollutant discharges. This program includes plans
for the implementation of best management practices designed to reduce the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The County’s General Plan update process now includes consideration of State-mandated
requirements for the control of stormwater runoff discharge rates, for the conservation of natural
areas, and for fostering development that will minimize adverse impacts on water quality and
associated water resources. The general public and businesses have been affected because the SWRCB required that the County adopt an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of virtually all non-stormwater into the County storm drain system. Previously, the County’s Grading Ordinance simply required compliance with the fairly generalized requirements that are contained in the California Building Code. The new Grading Ordinance
includes these requirements plus additional measures designed, among other things, to better
control off-site sediment discharges. The Ordinance references a Grading, Drainage, Erosion, and Sediment Control Design Manual that includes more detailed design guidelines and procedures needed to carry out the purposes of the Ordinance. The new Ordinance also designated the
Department of Public Works as the single entity with direct responsibility for all grading work. In
addition, the Department of Public Works submits annual reports to the CVRWQCB summarizing
regulatory compliance status and describing the progress made in completing identified control
measures
SPILLS. Typically, water treatment plant operators are notified of hazardous materials spills or other
significant events by the State Office of Emergency Services Spill Prevention and Response, or
County health services, public works department, or office of emergency services. A county may be notified by the sheriff’s dispatch center, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans, or by
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-23
its own road maintenance or flood control staff. As discussed under Solid and Hazardous Waste, the
CUPA for each county is responsible for coordinating the accidental release prevention program
and is contacted if there is a spill.
At Calaveras Big Trees State Park, if a spill occurs on Highway 4, the fire department is contacted. If
there is a spill in the park, the following agencies are contacted: Cal EMA, Calaveras County
Environmental Health Department, and CVRWQCB.
A spill in White Pines Lake or in the community park would be immediately reported to CCWD,
which has a maintenance crew stationed nearby. At New Hogan Lake, when a spill occurs the
following agencies are contacted: Calaveras County, Cal EMA, CCWD, and SEWD.
WASTEWATER
CONCERN
Sanitation facilities collect, treat, and dispose of human waste and can pose a variety of water
quality risks when they fail. Failures of treatment plants and onsite wastewater treatment (OWTS)
systems (e.g., septic tank/leachfield systems) may result in the introduction of disease-causing
pathogenic organisms such as bacteria, parasitic cysts, and viruses (directly or indirectly through
soils) to creeks that drain to the Calaveras River, its tributaries, and reservoirs. Also of concern is
the risk of increased nutrient loading, particularly nitrogen, to the waterbodies which can
contribute to DBP production.
Sanitary sewer overflows often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic organisms,
nutrients, oxygen demanding organic compounds, oil and grease, and other wastes.
OWTSs can contribute to the contamination of groundwater. However, a greater risk in the
Calaveras River watershed is improperly located, designed, constructed, or maintained systems
proximate to surface waters. In addition to the pathogenic organisms and nutrient loading
discussed above, improperly functioning systems may contribute metals, pesticides, herbicides,
SOCs, and organic matter from leachfields due to improper disposal of household chemicals.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES Wastewater discharges are typically considered a point source discharge, permitted by CVRWQCB. If the effluent is discharged to surface water, the facility is subject to a NPDES permit. If
the effluent is discharged to land via ponds or sprayfields, it is regulated by WDR. Onsite
wastewater treatment systems, which are located throughout the watershed, are regulated by the
CVRWQCB and the county environmental health departments, as discussed in depth in this section
under Watershed Management. Figure 3-2 shows the location of surface water dischargers.
One wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), the San Andreas WWTP, holds a NPDES permit to
discharge to surface water (as well as land disposal). The San Andreas Wastewater Treatment Plant
listed in Table 3-10 is owned and operated by San Andreas Sanitary District. It serves a population
of approximately 2,200 residents in the community of San Andreas. Treatment facilities include a
grit removal chamber, mechanical screens for solids removal, parshall flume for flow metering, pre-
aeration basin, primary and secondary clarifiers, recirculating trickling filter, sodium hypochlorite
contact chamber, sodium bisulfite dechlorination unit, heated unmixed anaerobic digester, sludge
drying beds, three post-secondary effluent polishing ponds, and a six million gallon (mgal) effluent
storage reservoir.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-24
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-25
Table 3-10: Surface Water WWTP Dischargers in Calaveras River Watershed
Facility Name Owner Community/Waterbody NPDES No.
San Andreas Wastewater
Treatment Plant
San Andreas Sanitary
District
San Andreas/Murray
Creek to North Fork
Calaveras River
CA0079464
Source: SWRCB, 2016e
Discharge to waterbodies is prohibited from May 1 through October 31. Surface drainage is to the
San Andreas and Murray creeks; however, the evaporation and percolation area drains to San
Andreas Creek only. San Andreas and Murray creeks are tributaries to the North Fork of the
Calaveras River. Effluent is land applied onto evaporation/percolation trenches from May 1 through
October 31 using a series of pipelines, evaporation, transpiration and percolation ditches after
wastewater has undergone tertiary treatment.
The WWTP has received 71 violations in the past five years. The majority of these violations were
for Category 2 pollutants such as copper, zinc, cyanide, and chlorine residual exceedances.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISCHARGERS – LAND DISPOSAL. Wastewater treatment plants that do not
dispose of the effluent to waterbodies typically use land disposal methods. These include spraying
fields, leachfields, holding ponds, and the reuse of tertiary treated wastewater in irrigation systems,
particularly golf courses. These facilities are required to comply with WDR orders and do not need
NPDES point discharge permits. The Calaveras River watershed facilities with WDR are listed in
Table 3-11; these facilities have been described in previous WSSs. Table 3-11 provides the number
and type of violations within the past five years. Most violations are Class III, such as late reporting,
which are considered to pose a minor threat. Sierra Ridge WWTP on Fricot City Road had numerous
total coliform, BOD, TOC, and TDS effluent exceedances. This facility drains to San Antonio Creek
below Sheep Ranch WTP and above the confluence with South Fork Calaveras River.
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS. Potential causes of sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) include grease,
root, and debris blockages, sewer line flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump
station mechanical failures, power outages, storm or groundwater inflow/infiltration, lack of
capacity, and/or contractor causes blockages.
A record of SSO is maintained by the SWRCB. Overflows listed in individual SSO reports contain
data related on each incident where sewage is discharged from the sanitary sewer system due to a
failure (e.g., sewer pipe blockage or pump failure). Table 3-12 provides a summary of SSOs within
the watershed from 2011 to 2015.
ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS. Outside of the wastewater collection and treatment
systems described above, most of the residential and commercial uses in the watershed are on
onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), commonly called septic systems, with leachfields
and/or septic tanks. These smaller communities include: Milton, Jenny Lind, Rancho Calaveras,
Calaveritas, Mountain Ranch, Sheep Ranch, and Lakemont Pines, in addition to areas within Arnold,
La Contenta, and Valley Springs that are not on a collection system. The western County has had the
highest failure rates of septic systems, especially near Valley Springs and Rancho Calaveras.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-26
Table 3-11: Land Disposal Dischargers in the Calaveras River Watershed
Facility Name Owner Violations1 Community WDR
Order
Big Trees County Houses
WWTP CCWD NA Camp Connell
R5-1994-
0357
Calaveras Big Trees State
Park Ca Dept Parks & Rec NA Arnold
R5-2006-
0043
Calaveras Timber Trails
WWTF
Calaveras Timber
Trails NA Avery 98-006
Camp Connell Maintenance
Station WWTF
Ca Dept of
Transportation DMON (5) Camp Connell 90-297
Gold Strike Village MHP Robert Bradley LREP (8) San Andreas 88-033
Jenny Lind Elementary School
Spray Fields
Calaveras Unified
School District
DMON (10) LREP
(7) OREQ (1) Jenny Lind 92-075
La Contenta WWTP & RF CCWD NA Valley Springs R5-2013-
0145
New Hogan WWTP USACOE LREP (3) OC (5) Valley Springs 98-075
Sierra Ridge WWTP Rite of Passage OC (17) San Andreas 01-056
Southworth Ranch Estates
WWTF CCWD
DMON (3) DR (3)
OC (1)
Valley
Springs/
Wallace
90-258
Toyon Middle School Ca Calaveras Unified
School District NA San Andreas 97-074
Valley Springs WWTF Valley Springs
Sanitary District NA Valley Springs
R5-2005-
0066 Source: CVRWQCB, 2016e. 1Violations Type (#of violations) within past five years: CAT1-Category 1 Pollutant; DMON-Deficient Monitoring; DR-
Deficient Reporting; LREP-Late Report; OC-Order Conditions; OEV-Other Effluent Violation; OREQ-Other Requirement.
NA-No violations
Table 3-12: Sanitary System Overflows in Collection Systems (2011 to 2015)
Agency/Collection System
Total
Number of
SSO Locations
Total Volume
of SSOs
(gallons)
Total Volume
Recovered
(gallons)
CCWD/Arnold CS 2 3,000 0
CCWD/La Contenta CS 1 85,000 84,500
CDPR/ Calaveras Big Trees State Park CS 5 9,255 4,149
San Andreas Sanitation District/San
Andreas CS 22 41,810 4,175
Valley Springs Sanitation District/Valley
Springs CS 1 100 0
Source: SWRCB, 2016c.
Engineered systems pump the liquids to an area with better drainage. As septic systems age, they
tend to fail more frequently. Properly operated systems can experience problems during prolonged
precipitation events. Of more concern is a plugged leachfield or tank or nonworking pump which
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-27
can send untreated sewage directly into a waterbody. Septic system siting can be problematic,
particularly in the higher elevations because there is less soil depth and less separation to
groundwater. Limestone and volcanic mudflow subsurface formations are problematic because of
the difficulty percolating.
The Calaveras County Environmental Health Department permits individual on-site sewage
disposal systems on parcels that have the area, soils, and other characteristics that permit
installation of such disposal facilities without threatening surface or groundwater quality. These
are only permitted where community sewer services are not available and cannot be provided.
There are currently no plans to replace septic systems with sewage collection service in the
watershed in the near future.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Federal and state laws protect water quality from wastewater discharges, as well as the point and
nonpoint sources. All treated wastewater in California that is reclaimed for reuse as recycled water
must comply with Title 22. On-site wastewater treatment systems are regulated by the SWRCB as
well as each county.
FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS FOR POINT AND NONPOINT WASTEWATER DISCHARGES. As discussed under
stormwater, the federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards and to
submit those standards for approval by the US EPA. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
is the principal state law governing water quality regulation in California. The Porter-Cologne Act
established a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water, and
established the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs which are charged with implementing its provisions, and
which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides
program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. The RWQCBs have
primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of
nine hydrologic regions. The Calaveras River falls under the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB.
The SWRCB and the RWQCBs preserve and enhance the quality of the State's waters through the
development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements. The
RWQCBs regulate point source discharges (i.e., discharges from a discrete conveyance) primarily
through issuance of NPDES and waste discharge requirement permits. NPDES permits serve as
waste discharge requirements for surface water discharges.
Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials to land in a manner that allows infiltration
into soil and percolation to groundwater (other than to a community sanitary sewer system
regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge to the local RWQCB (or receive
a waiver). Following receipt of a report of waste discharge, the RWQCB issues WDRs that prescribe
how the discharge is to be managed.
An NPDES permit is required for municipal, industrial, and construction discharges of wastes to
surface waters. Typically, NPDES permits are issued for a five-year term, and they are generally
issued by the RWQCBs. An individual permit (i.e., covering one facility) is tailored for a specific
discharge, based on information contained in the application (e.g., type of activity, nature of
discharge, and receiving water quality). A general permit is developed and issued to cover multiple
facilities within a specific category.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-28
The beneficial uses and receiving water objectives to protect those uses are established in the
Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, known as the
Basin Plan. The CVRWQCB establishes effluent limitations for wastewater dischargers based on the
beneficial uses and the receiving water body’s water quality objectives. Effluent limitations are specific to each discharge and vary throughout the Central Valley. If a discharge is to an ephemeral
stream or a stream that the CVRWQCB determines does not have any assimilative capacity for a contaminant, the discharger’s effluent must meet the receiving water quality objectives. If the receiving water has dilution capacity available, the CVRWQCB establishes effluent limitations that
allow for a mixing zone and effluent dilution in the receiving water. The CVRWQCB establishes
effluent limits for several contaminants in waste discharge permits. However, the Basin Plan does
not contain water quality objectives for key drinking water constituents of concern (e.g.,
disinfection byproduct precursors, pathogens, and nutrients) or the current objectives are not
based on drinking water concerns (salinity, chloride). Therefore, current reporting provides limited
effluent quality data for many such constituents because the dischargers are not required to
conduct monitoring.
STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS. The SWRCB adopted
Resolution 2012-0032 setting policy for the siting, design, operation, and maintenance of OWTS
(AB 885). The OWTS Policy sets standards for OWTS that are constructed or replaced, that are
subject to a major repair, that pool or discharge waste to the surface of the ground, and that have
affected, or will affect, groundwater or surface water to a degree that makes it unfit for drinking
water or other uses, or cause a health or other public nuisance condition. The OWTS Policy also
includes minimum operating requirements for OWTS that may include siting, construction, and
performance requirements; requirements for OWTS near certain waters listed as impaired under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; requirements authorizing local agency implementation of
the requirements; corrective action requirements; minimum monitoring requirements; exemption
criteria; requirements for determining when an existing OWTS is subject to major repair, and a
conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements (SWRCB, 2016d). The regulations allow local
control over managing the systems and provide some funding for low interest loans to property
owners needing help to meet the requirements. If the current OWTS is in good operating condition and is not near an impaired water body , the policy has little effect on property owners. Woods Creek east of Columbia in Tuolumne County is the only impaired waterbody on the OWTS policy
list; it drains to the Tuolumne River.
The Calaveras County Environmental Health Department is working on a Local Area Management
Plan to comply with the implementation of OWTS policies and regulations. The Calaveras County
Draft General Plan specifies new development of one dwelling unit per one acre-plus (no denser)
are allowed to have an OWTS, if feasible. Higher densities must be connected to public sewage
collection systems (Calaveras County, 2014). Calaveras County does not require that a septic
system be inspected during the sale of a property. However, most lending institutions require that a
septic system be pumped out and inspected to obtain a mortgage.
WILDFIRES
CONCERN
Wildfires result in a loss of surface cover and forest duff, such as needles and small branches, which
exposes soil to the direct impact of raindrops, which then reduces the infiltration capacity of the
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-29
soils, increasing runoff. With the loss of vegetation, rainfall does not collect and run off along
established depressions, but it dissipates rapidly as sheet flow. In addition, fires in chaparral
vegetation can produce hydrophobic soils. Hydrophobic soils decrease permeability of soils and
increase runoff. Wildfires contribute large loadings of sediment and organic matter in surface
runoff to waterbodies during the rainy seasons following the fire. Sediment is a major carrier and
catalyst for pesticides, organic residues, nutrients, and pathogenic organisms. Fire derived ash can
increase pH, alkalinity, and nutrients. The increase in turbidity at the treatment plants from fine
particles which have not settled to the bottom of waterways during transport result in increased
treatment operations (e.g., more filter backwashing, higher disinfectant dosages), increased
likelihood of TTHMs and other DBPs generated, and a greater level of risk of pathogens slipping
through the treatment process. Nutrient loads into water bodies, particularly phosphorus and
nitrogen, have also been reported to increase after wildfires.
In addition, water yields can be drastically impacted. Immediately following large fire events, runoff
peaks can increase significantly and can occur much earlier. Future overall yields can be lower,
depending on the nature of the fire and watershed characteristics. At moderately high altitudes, this
occurs because snowmelt is greatly accelerated due to the removal or reduction of shade. It is
released too rapidly to be stored in the soil, meadows, or in reservoirs. Post fire logging practices
can impact water quality through the application of herbicides to control brush and log removal
increasing erosion.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
According to CAL FIRE, the area features a range of challenging topography, fuels, and weather. An
expanding population increases the potential for large and damaging fires. The grasslands of the
rolling western plains routinely experience extreme summer heat, and significant wind events
during spring and fall months. The brush fields lay over broad expanses of steep hillsides and atop
narrow ridgelines between deepening river canyons, with topography making access difficult. The
brush transitions into mixed oak and conifer zones as the elevation increases and the canyon depth
and width increase with high hazard brush and timber fuels. This mid-elevation area also
experiences high summer temperatures and is most affected by normal diurnal winds associated
with the canyon topography. The higher elevation zone features dense stands of conifer timber,
with accumulations of ground and ladder fuels. Temperatures are routinely moderated due to the
elevation, however, wind events in the fall can contribute to challenging fire conditions (CAL FIRE,
2014).
A recent concern is the increase in tree mortality rates due in part to the current ongoing drought
and bark beetle infestation. Dead and dying trees raise the risk of faster moving and more intense
forest fires. In particular, Ponderosa, Pinyon, and sugar pines (Sacramento Bee, 2016).
All of Calaveras County is designated as having a very high fire risk rating. Volunteer fire
departments, special districts, county agencies, state agencies, and federal agencies provide fire
protection services in Calaveras County. Eleven fire protection districts, a public utility district, one
city fire department, and the Calaveras County Fire Department are organized to fight fires in the
county. Calaveras County has agreements with seven of the fire protection districts in which an
exchange of services, emergency response, and financial support is delineated. CAL FIRE and the
Forest Service are responsible for and provide wildland fire protection within their jurisdictions,
which together encompass virtually all of Calaveras County, excepting the City of Angels and part of
the San Andreas Fire Protection District.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-30
Table 3-13 lists fires that have occurred in the watershed in the last five years from CAL FIRE
incident reports. The tributary or reservoir downstream of the fire burn area is estimated. The Butte fire in was one of the most damaging fires in California’s history. The 70,868 acres
burned surrounding Mountain Ranch included 921 structure destroyed (i.e., 549 homes, 368
outbuildings and 4 commercial properties) and 44 structures damaged. Two citizens were killed
and one injured. Thirteen agencies cooperated to control the fire. As of this date, it is believed to
have been started by power utility crews removing trees near utility poles, weakening support for a
tree which then fell onto electrical wires. Figure 3-3 presents the extent of the Butte fire in relation
to the WTPs.
Table 3-13: Fires in Calaveras River Watershed (2011 to 2015)
Year Fire Name Tributary/Reservoir Contained Acres
2015 Butte Fire San Antonio Creek to New Hogan September 9 70,868
2014 Oak Fire Bear Creek to New Hogan June 22 85
2014 Reed Fire Bear Creek to New Hogan June 20 120
2012 Michal Fire Willow Creek to South Fork
Calaveras September 11 23
2012 Salt Fire Salt Spring Valley Reservoir September 5 84
2012 Paloma Fire New Hogan May 31 37
2011 Tuolumne-Calaveras Wind
Event Multiple locations December 6 781
2011 TCU September Lightning Multiple locations September 9 1,135
2011 Freccero Fire Calavaritas Creek September 7 57
2011 Murray Fire San Andreas Creek to South Fork
Calaveras July 25 83
Source: CAL FIRE Incident Report (CAL FIRE, 2016a). Tributary/reservoirs were identified from aerial photographs
and are approximate.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Areas of the state are designed as State Responsibility Areas (CAL FIRE is the primary responder for
nonstructural fires outside of Forest Service land), Federal Responsibility Areas (Forest Service has
primary jurisdiction for fires in the Stanislaus National Forest), or Local Responsibility Areas
(county or city fire departments have primary jurisdiction).
Calaveras County Fire and Emergency Services is the primary responder for structure fires, unless a
community has a fire agency. Calaveras Consolidated Fire Protection District is the principle fire
agency in the western portion of the county serving the communities of Valley Springs, Milton,
Rancho Calaveras, La Contenta, and Jenny Lind within the watershed. Central Calaveras Fire District
is a primarily volunteer department with limited paid staff serving the communities of Glencoe,
Mountain Ranch, and Sheep Ranch within the watershed. San Andreas Fire Protection District
serves the San Andreas community and vicinity.
In 2014 the CAL FIRE Tuolumne Calaveras Unit updated its Pre-Fire Management Plan. The report
includes assessment summaries of each battalion in the region including a discussion of assets at
risk, fuels and weather, and management activities undertaken by the unit to prevent fire damage
to the area (CALFIRE, 2014). Coordination of fuel reduction efforts in the Calaveras District of the
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-31
Stanislaus National Forest continues to be a high priority because several large subdivisions within
the greater Arnold area are immediately adjacent to USFS lands. The CAL FIRE Emergency
Watershed Protection and the Forest Service Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation teams begin
rehabilitation evaluations once a fire is contained. The teams review both the suppression impacts,
such as the fire lines constructed by hand crews and dozers, and the fire impacts to determine the
extent of repair and rehabilitation needed. After a wildland fire, CAL FIRE assists with
hydroseeding, mulching, and other slope stabilization techniques. CAL FIRE attempts to restore the
disturbed area. Erosion mitigation response conducted after a wildfire depends on how much
vegetation was removed, soil type, steepness of slope, and other factors.
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-32
WILDLIFE
CONCERN
Wild animal populations may be a potential threat to water quality, because they may contribute
pathogenic organisms such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, bacteria, and viruses to the water
supply. Wild animals congregate near bodies of water, similar to domestic animals, and can
contribute to increased nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), microorganisms (bacteria, viruses,
and protozoa), and increased erosion of sediment from compaction and disturbance of soils. Birds,
in particular, can be a significant source of pathogens to waterbodies because of the direct nature of
their deposits, and a tendency to roost in large numbers on water surfaces, and if there is a large
year round population as opposed to migratory population. The more expensive testing required to
determine whether detected coliform levels are from human or animal sources is usually not
conducted.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
The grasslands of the watershed provide productive habitat for hundreds of vertebrate and
invertebrate species while the woodland vegetation supports a wide variety of game species.
Common bird species include acorn woodpeckers, common crows, California quail, doves, hawks,
and eagles. Mammals include bats, gray foxes, coyotes, deer, raccoons, and rodents. Squirrels, deer
mice, voles and pocket gophers can be found in the grasslands.
Mammals include foxes, coyotes, deer, raccoons, bear, mountain lion, bobcat, wild boar, squirrel,
and rabbit. Deer are the most prevalent large mammal. In Calaveras County there are resident deer
and migratory deer that move from its winter range in central Calaveras County to its summer
range in Alpine County; Mountain Ranch is in a migration zone. Raccoons, skunks, opossums,
weasels, muskrats and black-tailed deer favor the riparian corridors. In the forested lands of the
upper watershed, habitat supports wildlife such as bears, martens, gray foxes, mountain lions,
weasels, coyotes, spotted skunks, flying and gray squirrels, opossums, ringtail cats, and other
species.
New Hogan Reservoir is home to fox, blacktail deer, coyote, turkey, mountain lion, bobcat, and
wintering home for bald eagles (USACOE, 2016). Visitors to Calaveras Big Trees State Park have
observed raccoon, fox, porcupine, chipmunk, flying squirrel, black bear, bobcat, and coyote.
Waterfowl at reservoirs is of particular concern. Canada geese are becoming resident (non-
migratory) and a single goose can defecate up to 1.5 pounds per day. Their fecal matter may
contribute pathogens and nutrients. Boating on the reservoir and seasonal mixing can stir up
settled fecal deposits.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Watershed management of wild animals occurs through the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, county animal control officers, and Forest Service. The presence of wildlife are a high risk
to water quality because they difficult to manage to prevent contamination of drinking water
supplies.
Managing Canada geese is difficult because there are federal protections. Border collies are
effective in chasing geese as a management control but are not a practical solution. Signage
discouraging people from feeding them aids in educating the public about the problem. Replanting
grass areas with tall fescue or ground covers reduces their food source while studies have shown
SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-33
that geese were less likely to walk to food that was placed beyond 39 yards from the water line. In
addition, increasing bank slope or placing large stones around the banks reduces the attraction
(ICWDM, 2015).
GROWTH AND URBANIZATION
The majority of the Calaveras River watershed is sparsely populated, with several small towns
located near historical mining or agricultural areas. The Calaveras River watershed includes no
incorporated cities. Population estimates for the previous five years are provided in Table 3-14.
These recent population estimates from the California State Department of Finance report the
population of Calaveras County as approximately 44,900, a 1.2 percent decrease from 2011 (CDOF,
2015).
Table 3-14 Population of Calaveras County
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Percent Change
2011 to 2015
Calaveras 45,414 45,305 45,116 45,010 44,881 -1.2
Source: DOF, 2015
The draft Calaveras County General Plan indicates that its population is expected to increase to
54,912 by 2035. Development potential of vacant parcels could yield a maximum of 51,688 new
dwelling units plus 3,810 units that have previously been approved but are undeveloped near
Copperopolis. However, according to the County, a more likely buildout scenario is approximately
23,000 new units. At the current 2.41 people per household, over 56,000 new residents may be
accommodated in the county (Calaveras County, 2015c).
In 2006, in partnership with local governments and organizations in Amador County and Calaveras
County, Local Government Commission, a non-governmental organization, conducted a watershed
planning project with communities in the two counties (e.g., the Upper Mokelumne Watershed
Council, CCWD, the Angels Camp City Council, the Foothill Conservancy, MyValleySprings.com, and
the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Council). The goal was to support integration of
stormwater management and watershed planning into the updated general plan and policy
documents. The strategy is to better align land use planning with water resource planning and
provide the analysis, policy recommendations, and tools and resources necessary to implement
watershed-based planning strategies. The most important recommendation of the report is for the
counties to improve the pattern and character of development in the region to better protect and
manage water resources. (LGC, 2008)
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-1
This section presents a review of available water quality data. Section 4 is organized as follows.
Review of drinking water regulations with a focus on the Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), and the Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR).
Water quality data for the study period 2011 through 2015 are presented for each of the
participating public water systems.
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1974. The
SDWA authorized the US EPA to set standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. The
SDWA was amended in 1986 and again in 1996. Under the SDWA, states are given primacy to adopt
and implement drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than the federal regulations
and to enforce those regulations. For California, the DDW is the primacy agency with this authority.
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) was promulgated in 1989 to control the levels of
turbidity, Giardia lamblia, viruses, Legionella, and heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria.
Compliance with the SWTR is demonstrated by meeting specific turbidity and disinfection
performance requirements. Surface water treatment plants are required to achieve 3-log (99.9
percent) reduction of Giardia and 4-log (99.99 percent) reduction of viruses. A conventional
filtration plant in compliance with the turbidity performance standards is given credit for physical
removal of 2.5 logs Giardia and 2.0 log virus. The additional 0.5-log Giardia reduction and 2-log
virus reduction must be achieved through disinfection. A direct filtration plant in compliance with
the turbidity performance standards is given credit for physical removal of 2 logs Giardia and 1 log
virus. The additional 1 log Giardia reduction and 3-log virus reduction must be achieved through
disinfection. Compliance with the disinfection requirements is demonstrated by monitoring CT
where C is the concentration of disinfectant and T is the contact time for the disinfectant, and CT is
the product of the two. The calculated CT is compared to CT values required to achieve a certain log
inactivation credit.
Beyond the minimum SWTR requirements described above, DDW staff can impose additional
treatment requirements (via the permit process) when the quality of the raw water poses higher
microbial risk according to the criteria presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Coliform Triggers for Increased Giardia and Virus Reduction
Median Monthly Total
Coliform MPN/100 mL
Giardia Cyst Treatment
Requirement
Virus Treatment
Requirement
<1000 3 4
>1000 – 10,000 4 5
>10,000 – 100,000 5 6
EPA promulgated the IESWTR in 1998 (effective in California in January 2008). The IESWTR
applied to surface water systems (and groundwater under the direct influence of surface water)
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-2
serving greater than 10,000 population. The IESWTR lowered the turbidity performance
requirement in the 1989 SWTR for the combined filter effluent from 0.5 NTU to 0.3 NTU for
conventional and direct filtration plants, and required that utilities monitor and record the
turbidity for individual filters. In addition, the IESWTR added (1) a requirement that utilities
achieve 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium, with compliance demonstrated by meeting the turbidity
performance requirement, (2) requirements for disinfection profiling and benchmarking, and (3) a
requirement that all new finished water storage facilities be covered.
In January 2002 EPA published the final Long-term 1 ESWTR (LT1ESWTR). The LT1ESWTR
applied the requirements of the IESWTR to systems serving less than 10,000 population. The
LT1ESWTR went into effect in California in July 2013.
The LT2ESWTR was promulgated in January 2006 and was effective in California in July 2013. The
LT2ESWTR required 2 years of monthly source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Depending
upon the concentration of Cryptosporidium, utilities were placed into one of four bins, which
corresponded to levels of risk. Table 4-2 presents the schedule for the initial round of source water
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
Table 4-2: LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring Schedule
Population Served
≥ 100,000 50,000 to
99,999
10,000 to
49,999
< 10,000*
Begin first round of
source water
monitoring
October
2006
April
2007
April
2008
October
2008
Submit Bin
Classification
March
2009
September
2009
September
2010
September
2012
Begin second round of
source water
monitoring
April
2015
October
2015
October
2016
April
2019
*Required to monitor every two weeks for E. coli, results may trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
Table 4-3 presents the various bin classifications adopted in the LT2ESWTR. If the monitoring
results indicated placement in Bin 1, no additional treatment for Cryptosporidium was required
beyond the 2-log removal credit given to plants that meet the turbidity removal requirements.
Placement in Bins 2 through 4 required increasing levels of Cryptosporidium reduction. EPA
developed a microbial toolbox that assigned credit for Cryptosporidium reduction for various
treatment options.
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-3
Table 4-3: LT2ESWTR Bin Classification
Cryptosporidium
Concentration (oocysts/L)
Bin
Classification
Additional Treatment Required
for Conventional Filtration Plan*
<0.075 1 No additional treatment
>0.075 and <1.0 2 1 log treatment
>1.0 and <3.0 3 2 log treatment**
>3.0 4 2.5 log treatment** *Using any technology or combination of technologies from microbial toolbox.
** At least 1 log must be achieved using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV light, membranes, bag/cartridge filters, or bank filtration.
The LT2ESWTR requires that utilities conduct a second round of source water monitoring 6 years
after completing the initial monitoring. The second round of source water monitoring for Schedule
1 systems (>100,000 population) began in April 2015. A system is exempt from the source water
Cryptosporidium monitoring if it provides at least 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment.
REGULATION OF DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS (DBPS)
DBPs have been regulated since the adoption of the 1979 trihalomethane (TTHM) standard. In
1998, EPA promulgated the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products (D/DBP) Rule, which
lowered the MCL for TTHMs from 0.10 mg/L to 0.080 mg/L, and established new MCLs for
haloacetic acids (HAA5) at 0.060 mg/L, bromate at 0.010 mg/L (for systems using ozone), and
chlorite at 1.0 mg/L (for systems using chlorine dioxide). The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule also established
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels (MRDLs) for disinfectants including chlorine, chloramines,
and chlorine dioxide, and included requirements for enhanced coagulation for the removal of natural organic matter in surface water filtration plants that use conventional treatment.
Compliance with the enhanced coagulation requirement is met by achieving specific levels of Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) removal for a given raw water quality.
To determine compliance with the enhanced coagulation requirements, each monthly set of paired
TOC samples (raw water and combined filter effluent) is used to determine the removal percentage
achieved, as follows:
100TOCWaterRaw
TOCWaterTreated-TOC Water RawAchievedRemovalTOC
The required TOC removal varies with the quality of the source water, as shown in Table 4-4.
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-4
Table 4-4: Step 1 TOC Removal Requirements
Source Water
TOC (mg/L)
Source Water Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
0 to 60 >60 to 120 >120
>2.0 to 4.0 35% 25% 15%
>4.0 to 8.0 45% 35% 25%
>8.0 50% 40% 30%
After determining the TOC removal achieved and finding the Step 1 TOC removal required from
Table 4-4, the compliance ratio is calculated as follows:
RequiredRemovalTOCAchievedRemovalTOC
RatioCompliance
Each month, a compliance ratio is determined. Each month’s compliance ratio is averaged with the compliance ratios for the previous 11 months to calculate a rolling 12-month average. If the rolling
12-month average of compliance ratios is 1.0 or greater, the requirement is met. This calculation
must be done each quarter. There are alternative compliance criteria which can be used to exempt a system from the DBP precursor treatment technique requirements. In any month that one or more of the following six
conditions are met, a monthly compliance ratio value of 1.0 can be assigned (in lieu of the value
calculated above) when determining compliance.
1. The source water TOC is <2.0 mg/L.
2. The treated water TOC is <2.0 mg/L.
3. The source water Specific UV Absorbance (SUVA), prior to any treatment, is 2.0 L/mg-m.
4. The treated water SUVA is 2.0 L/mg-m.
5. The raw water TOC is <4.0 mg/L, the raw water alkalinity is >60 mg/L (as CaCO3), the
TTHMs are <40 µg/L and the HAA5 is <30 µg/L.
6. The TTHMs are <40 µg/L and the HAA5 is <30 µg/L with only chlorine for disinfection.
Both source water and treated water SUVA must be measured upstream of any oxidant addition,
including chlorine. Further, both UV-254 and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) used in the SUVA
calculation are measured after the water has been filtered through 0.45-µm filter paper. If the system cannot meet the Step TOC removal levels, the system can apply to DDW for a Step alternative TOC removal requirement. The Step application must be made within three months
of determining that Step 1 removals cannot be achieved.
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-5
In its application for the Step alternate TOC removal, the system must provide data from bench or pilot testing. The Step 2 removal requirements are determined as follows:
1. Bench- or pilot-scale testing of enhanced coagulation is conducted using representative
water samples and adding 10 mg/L increments of alum (or 5.4 mg/L of ferric chloride) until
the pH is reduced to a level less than or equal to the Step 2 target pH values shown in Table
4-5.
Table 4-5: Step 2 Enhanced Coagulation Target pH Values
Raw Water Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCO3)
Target pH
0 to 60 5.5
>60 to 120 6.3
>120 to 240 7.0
>240 7.5
2. The Step 2 dose is the least of the following two doses:
a. The dose resulting in the Step 2 target pH value shown in Table 4-5, or
b. The dose above which the next higher dose results in less than 0.3 mg/L of
additional TOC removal (this is called the Point of Diminishing Returns).
3. The percent TOC removal achieved with the Step 2 dose is then defined as the minimum
TOC removal required by the plant.
4. Once approved by DDW, this Step 2 TOC removal requirement supersedes the minimum
TOC removal requirement (Step 1) shown in Table 4- 5.
5. If no incremental increase of 10 mg/L alum (or 5.4 mg/L ferric chloride) results in greater
than 0.3 mg/L incremental TOC removal, then the water is deemed to contain TOC not
amenable to enhanced coagulation. Under those conditions, the system may apply to DDW
for a waiver of enhanced coagulation requirements.
On January 4, 2006, EPA promulgated the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule (effective in California in June 2012).
The Stage 2 D/DBP Rule did not change the MCLs, the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels
(MRDLs), or the enhanced coagulation requirements from the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule. However, it did
change the manner in which compliance with the MCLs for TTHMs and HAA5 is determined,
requiring compliance at each sampling location rather than across the entire distribution system.
The Rule contained a new requirement where systems conducted an Initial Distribution System
Evaluation that would be used to identify sample locations anticipated to produce higher levels of
DBPs.
REVISED TOTAL COLIFORM RULE (TCR)
In February 2013 EPA published the final Revised TCR. Compliance monitoring under the Revised
TCR began April 1, 2016.
The Revised TCR contains the following elements:
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-6
1. Eliminates the MCL for coliform bacteria (but systems continue to monitor for the presence
of coliform bacteria).
2. MCL compliance to be based on presence/absence of E. coli.
3. The presence of total coliform and E. coli trigger investigations, referred to as Level 1 and Level Assessments as described below , for potential sanitary defects in the distribution system.
4. No changes to the current approved analytical methods.
5. No changes in the number of samples required each month and no changes are made to the
requirement to collect a set of 3-repeat samples for any routine sample that is coliform
positive.
Figure 4-1 presents a flow chart that summarizes the requirements of the Revised TCR. The
sections following the flowchart present a brief description of these requirements.
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-7
Figure 4-1 Flow Chart for Revised Total Coliform Rule
Start Decision
Tree Here
TC-
Routine TCR Monitoring
TC+ / EC- TC+ / EC+
Collect 3 repeat samples within 24 hours and
proceed under TCR and collect any triggered
samples at wells under GWR
Collect 3 repeat samples within 24 hours and
proceed under TCR and collect any triggered
samples at wells under GWR
Any repeat sample TC+ / EC+ ?
>5% samples in month positive coliform ?
Any repeat sample TC+ / EC+ ?
Level 1 Assessment
Any repeat sample TC+ / EC- ?
Any repeat sample TC+ / EC- ?
TCR MCL Violation.Public Notification – 24
hours. May require boil water notice.
Level 2 Assessment
Two level 1 assessments in 12
months ?
Yes
No
Yes
No
NoYes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-8
DETERMINING COMPLIANCE UNDER THE REVISED TCR. Under the revised TCR the following conditions
will be considered a violation of the MCL for E. coli:
1. The system has an E. coli positive repeat sample following a total coliform-positive routine
sample.
2. The system has a total coliform-positive repeat sample following an E. coli-positive routine
sample.
3. The system fails to collect all required repeat samples following an E. coli positive routine
sample.
4. The system fails to test for E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for total coliform.
LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT. The objective of a Level 1 assessment is to identify the possible presence of
sanitary defects in the distribution system. A sanitary defect is defined as a defect that could
provide a pathway of entry for microbial contamination into the distribution system or that is
indicative of a failure or imminent failure in a sanitary barrier already in place.
A Level 1 assessment is triggered when there are more than 5 percent total coliform positive
samples in a given month (for a system collecting 40 or more samples per month). For systems
collecting less than 40 coliform samples per month, the Level 1 Assessment is triggered in any
month when there is more than one positive Total Coliform result. A Level 1 assessment is also required if a system does not collect all of the required repeat samples in a given month. A Level 1 assessment can be conducted by utility staff (i.e., it does not have to be conducted by a
third party). At a minimum the Level 1 Assessment is to include the following:
Review and identification of inadequacies in sample sites, sampling protocol and sample
processing,
Review of atypical events that could affect or impair distribution system water quality,
Review of any changes in distribution system maintenance and operation (including storage
facilities) that could impact distribution system water quality, and
Review of source and treatment considerations that could affect distribution system water
quality.
Within 30 days of learning that it has exceeded the trigger to conduct a Level 1 assessment, the
system must complete and submit a Level 1 Assessment report to DDW. The report is to include (1)
a description of any identified sanitary defects (or none detected if that is the case), (2) the
corrective actions completed and (3) if necessary, a proposed timetable for corrective actions that
were not completed within the 30-day timeframe.
LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENT. A Level 2 Assessment is triggered when there is a violation of the E. coli MCL.
A Level 2 Assessment is also required if a system has needed to conduct two Level 1 Assessments
within a rolling 12-month time frame (however, if DDW determines that the cause of the positive
samples that triggered the Level 1 Assessments were identified and the sanitary defect(s) were
corrected, then DDW can determine that a Level 2 Assessment is not needed).
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-9
A Level 2 Assessment is intended to provide a more detailed review than a Level 1 Assessment. At a
minimum a Level 2 Assessment is to evaluate atypical events that could impact water quality.
These events are described in the Revised TCR as (1) changes in distribution system maintenance
and operation procedures, (2) changes in source water and/or treatment, and (3) any changes in
sampling locations, sample collection and processing/handling of samples that may have
contributed to the Level 2 trigger. States can develop their own requirements for a Level 2
Assessment based on system size, type, and characteristics.
FAILURE TO CONDUCT A REQUIRED ASSESSMENT. A system that exceeds the trigger to conduct an
assessment, but fails to conduct the required Level 1 or Level 2 assessment is in violation of the
treatment technique provisions of the Revised TCR (RTCR) (this would require public notification).
Furthermore, a system that fails to correct sanitary defects identified in either assessment is also in
violation of the Revised TCR.
RTCR IMPLEMENTATION IN CALIFORNIA AS OF APRIL 2016. As of April 2016 California had not yet
proposed (nor adopted) regulations to implement the federal RTCR. DDW posted the following
statement on its web site.
“Beginning April , , all public water systems will need to comply with California’s existing Total Coliform Rule and the new requirements in the federal rTCR, until California can complete the regulatory adoption process for the rTCR.
Additional information, including Level 1 Assessment forms, is posted on the DDW website at the
following location.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/rtcr.shtml
ADDITIONAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
In addition to the regulations described above, EPA and DDW have established health-based
regulations for a number of inorganic chemicals (metals, minerals), organic chemicals (volatile and
synthetic organic chemicals), radionuclides (man-made and naturally occurring), and non-health
based secondary standards for constituents that can impact the taste, odor, and/or color of drinking
water.
FUTURE DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
The following presents a discussion of various activity related to future drinking water regulations
within the next five year period.
CONTAMINANT CANDIDATE LIST. Every five years, EPA is required to publish a list of currently unregulated contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or promulgated NPDWRs [National Primary Drinking Water Regulation], are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and may require regulation under the SDWA (referred to as the Contaminant Candidate List or
CCL). Every five years, EPA is also required to determine whether or not to regulate at least five
contaminants from the CCL.
CCL3. The third CCL (CCL3) was published in 2009. In October 2014, US EPA published
Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for five contaminants from CCL3. The five contaminants
are: strontium, 1,3-dinitrobenzene (industrial chemical, byproduct from manufacture of
munitions), dimethoate (organophosphate pesticide), terbufos (organophosphate pesticide) and
terbufos sulfone (terbufos degradation product). EPA intends to regulate strontium, but does not
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-10
intend to regulate the other four contaminants. In January 2016, US EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register with a final decision not to regulate 1,3-dinitrobenzene, dimethoate, terbufos and
terbufos sulfone. US EPA delayed a final decision on regulating strontium to consider additional data and decide whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction by regulating strontium in drinking water. In February , EPA published for public comment, a draft of the fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL4) containing 100 chemical constituents and 12 microbial
entities.
UCMR. In 2012, EPA published the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3).
Utilities conducted one-year of monitoring in the period of 2013 – 2015 for 30 contaminants. The
UCMR monitoring program develops occurrence information for unregulated contaminants (from
the CCLs) that may require regulation in the future. In December 2015, EPA published for public
comment the UCMR4 (the deadline for submitting public comments was February 9, 2016).
Included in the proposed UCMR4 were cyanotoxins, metals, pesticides, brominated haloacetic acids,
alcohols, and semivolatile organic chemicals.
CYANOBACTERIA. Cyanobacteria (also known as blue green algae) occur throughout the world. Some
species of cyanobacteria can produce toxins. Factors that affect cyanobacteria blooms include light
intensity, sunlight duration, nutrient availability, water temperature, pH and water stability. In August , Toledo, Ohio issued a Do Not Drink order to approximately , residents due to the presence of an algal toxin, microcystin, in drinking water. During this event, Toledo and Ohio
EPA used the World Health Organization (WHO) guidance of 1 µg/L for microcystin as the trigger to issue the Do Not Drink order. On August , , at the start of the event, the raw water concentration of microcystin was 14 µg/L and the treated water concentration was 2.5 µg/L. In
response to the event, Toledo staff operating the Collins Park Water Treatment Plant (a
conventional treatment plant), increased the chlorine dose from 2.2 mg/L to 2.7 mg/L, and
increased the PAC dose from 6.3 mg/L to 15 mg/L. On August 4, 2014, the concentration of
microcystin in drinking water was below µg/L and the Do Not Use order was lifted. On May 11, 2015 EPA held a public meeting on cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins. The EPA presented
10-day Health Advisories (HA) for two cyanotoxins: microcystin and cylindrospermopsin presented
in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: EPA 10-day HA Values (µg/L)
Algal Toxin 10-Day HA
<6 years of Age
10-Day HA
>6 Years of Age Health Effect
Microcystin 0.3 1.6 Liver Toxicity
Cylindrospermopsin 0.7 3 Liver & Kidney Toxicity
EPA released the 10-day HAs in June . At the same time the EPA released a Health Effects Support Document for anatoxin-a. The HA documents include the following information.
Information on sources, occurrence, and environmental fate
Summary of available health effects information
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-11
Calculation of the Health Advisories
Recommended analytical methods
Review of treatment technology
EPA staff described the 10-day HAs as the concentration in drinking at or below which no adverse non-carcinogenic effects are expected for a ten-day exposure. Given the nationwide interest in the issue of algal toxins, a single confirmed positive measurement in finished water above one of the
infant HA values may trigger DDW to require public notification and/or modification of treatment.
SIX-YEAR REVIEW OF REGULATIONS. The SDWA requires that every six years, EPA review primary
drinking water regulations to determine whether they should be revised. The next six-year review
is scheduled to be published in 2016. EPA indicated that as part of this six-year review process,
they will include disinfection by-products. EPA will include chlorate and nitrosamines in this six-
year review, and will evaluate whether they should be regulated under the SDWA.
LONG-TERM REVISIONS TO THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE (LCR). The National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC) formed an LCR Working Group to assist EPA with developing recommendations
for long-term revisions to the LCR. The NDWAC LCR Working Group began meeting in March 2014
and in August 2015 published a final report with their recommendations. The LCR Working Group
recommended changes addressed the following.
Lead service line replacement
Move to a volunteer home tap sampling program
Development of a Household Action Level for lead
Increased public outreach
Separate the copper requirements from lead
REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY DATA
There are two public water agencies (SEWD and CCWD) participating in this watershed sanitary
survey update of the Calaveras River watershed. Raw water and treated water quality data were
collected for the study period 2011 through 2015 and are summarized here.
SHEEP RANCH WTP
The source water for the Sheep Ranch WTP is White Pines Lake via San Antonio Creek. White Pines
Lake is owned and operated by CCWD. The lake is used for raw water supply, flood control, and
recreation (fishing, hiking, picnics).
Treatment processes at the Sheep Ranch WTP include sodium hypochlorite addition to the raw
water followed by addition of a polyaluminum chloride/cationic polymer blend to the raw water.
Mixing is achieved with a static mixer. The water then flows through a pressure dual-media filter.
Sodium hypochlorite is added to the filtered water and the water flows to a 78,000 gallon clearwell.
When turbidity reaches 10 NTU, the WTP triggers a forced shut down. The clearwell can provide a
5 -10 day supply of drinking water.
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-12
SHEEP RANCH WTP RAW WATER QUALITY. Figure 4-2 presents weekly total coliform results for the
influent to Sheep Ranch WTP. During 2011 through 2015, the total coliform results ranged from
ND to >2,419 MPN/100 mL, with an average of 474 MPN/100 mL. Figure 4-3 presents the weekly
E. coli results. The results ranged from ND to >2,400 MPN/100 mL, with an average of 45 MPN/100
mL. There were a total of 254 raw water bacteriological samples collected during 2011 – 2015.
Thirty-eight samples had a total coliform result greater than 1,000 MPN/100 mL. Five samples had
an E. coli result of 200 MPN/100 mL or greater and 17 samples had a result of 100 MPN/100 mL or
greater.
Figure 4-2 Sheep Ranch Total Coliforms (2011-2015)
Figure 4-3 Sheep Ranch E. coli (2011-2015)
Figure 4-4 presents raw water turbidity results for Sheep Ranch WTP. While the frequency can
vary, in general turbidity is measured three days per week. The range of turbidity results was <0.1
NTU to 31 NTU, with an average of 1.6 NTU. During the study period of 2011 through 2015
turbidity was recorded at 10 NTU or greater on four separate days (10 NTU or greater triggers an
automatic shut down of the WTP). Figure 4-5 presents the pH results during 2011 through 2015.
The pH results ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 8.5, with an average pH of 7.
Figure 4-4 Sheep Ranch Turbidity (2011-2015)
Figure 4-5 Sheep Ranch pH (2011-2015)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Tota
l Co
lifo
rm (
MP
N/1
00
mL)
Sheep Ranch Raw Water Total Coliforms
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
E. c
oli
(MP
N/1
00
mL)
Sheep Ranch Raw Water E. coli**E. coli results of 1,600 MPN/100 mL on September 14, 2011
>2,400 MPN/100 mL on October 5, 2011 not included in figure.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Turb
idit
y (N
TU
)
Sheep Ranch Raw Water Turbidity
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
pH
Sheep Ranch Raw Water pH
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-13
Figures 4-6 and 4-7 present the monthly raw water TOC and alkalinity results. TOC ranged from
0.64 mg/L to 8.9 mg/L, with an average of 1.8 mg/L. Alkalinity ranged from 12 mg/L to 52 mg/L,
with an average of 31 mg/L as CaCO3. As indicated in Figure 4-7, alkalinity is increasing from
January 2011 through December 2015 and it appears in general that TOC has been increasing since
about the spring of 2013 through the end of 2015. A review of the quarterly enhanced coagulation
reports for 2011 through 2015 indicates that compliance is achieved either through meeting the
percent reduction of TOC required or by meeting the alternative compliance criteria where the
treated water TOC is less than 2 mg/L.
Figure 4-6 Sheep Ranch TOC (2011-2015)
Figure 4-7 Sheep Ranch Alkalinity(2011-2015)
SHEEP RANCH WTP TREATED WATER QUALITY. Figures 4-8 and 4-9 present the results for TTHMs
and HAA5, respectively. All results are below the respective MCLs.
Figure 4-8 Sheep Ranch TTHMs (2011-2015)
Figure 4-9 Sheep Ranch HAA5 (2011-2015)
SHEEP RANCH TITLE 22 MONITORING. Raw and treated water Title 22 monitoring results are
presented in Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2, respectively. Low levels of aluminum and nitrate
were detected in the raw water. All other inorganic chemicals (IOCs) were ND. During 2011-2015,
one sample indicated a low level detection of tetrachloroethylene (PCE). All other annual samples
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
TOC
(m
g/L
)
Sheep Ranch Raw Water TOC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Alk
alin
ity
(mg
/L a
s C
aC
O3)
Sheep Ranch Raw Water Alkalinity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
TT
HM
s (µ
g/L
)
MCL = 80 µg/L
Sheep Ranch TTHMs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
HA
A5
(µ
g/L
)
MCL = 60 µg/LSheep Ranch HAA5
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-14
for PCE were ND. No other VOCs were detected. For the SOC monitoring, results for alachlor,
atrazine, and simazine were ND.
JENNY LIND WTP
The Jenny Lind WTP is located three miles south of Valley Springs. The WTP serves a population
around 10,000, through approximately 3,800 connections, and has a capacity of 6 MGD. The raw
water intake (infiltration gallery) is located in the Calaveras River, approximately one mile south of
New Hogan Reservoir in Jenny Lind.
Raw water from the intake is pumped to two ozone contactors. Ozone can be added to either
chamber in each contactor. Sodium permanganate is added for iron and manganese removal and a
coagulant is added to the ozone contactor effluent and mixed through an in-line, static mixer. A
streaming current detector is used to control the coagulant addition rate. From the static mixer, the
water enters the bottom of an upflow adsorption clarifier. In the adsorption clarifier, the water
passes through a bed of buoyant adsorption media that provide three treatment processes:
coagulation, flocculation, and clarification. The adsorption clarifier effluent flows into a mixed
media filter containing anthracite, sand, and garnet. Sodium hypochlorite is added to the filter
effluent, and zinc orthophosphate is added for corrosion control in the distribution system. The
treated water is pumped to the clearwell (0.245-MG capacity). Water from the clearwell is gravity-
fed to a 2-MG storage tank.
JENNY LIND WTP RAW WATER QUALITY. The raw water supply is sampled weekly for total coliforms
and E. coli. Figure 4-10 presents the total coliform results. The total coliform results ranged from
4.5 MPN/100 mL to >2,419 MPN/100 mL, with an average of 435 MPN/100 mL. The total coliform
results during 2015 were consistently higher than in previous years. This increase in total
coliforms could be due to the impact of the drought on water in New Hogan Reservoir. Figure 4-11
presents the weekly E. coli results. The E. coli results ranged from ND to 350 MPN/100 mL, with an
average of 19 MPN/100 mL.
Figure 4-10 Jenny Lind Total Coliforms (2011-2015)
Figure 4-11 Jenny Lind E. coli (2011-2015)
Figure 4-12 presents the daily raw water turbidity for 2011 through 2015. The turbidity ranged
from 0.29 NTU to 73 NTU, with an average 2 NTU. However, it is noted that the last nine days of
2015 (December 23, 2015 through December 31, 2015) the WTP influent experienced unusually
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Tota
l Co
lifo
rm (
MP
N/1
00
mL)
Jenny Lind Total Coliforms
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
E. c
oli
(MP
N/1
00
mL)
Jenny Lind E. coli
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-15
high turbidity results. For this nine day period the turbidity ranged from 19 NTU to 73 NTU, and
the average was 39 NTU. A review of operational information for New Hogan Reservoir indicates a
significant storm event occurred around December 21-22, 2015. Without including these nine
turbidity values, during the entire period of 2011-2015 the turbidity ranged from 0.29 NTU to 22
NTU, and the average was 1.8 NTU.
Figure 4-13 presents the daily pH for the raw water to Jenny Lind WTP. The raw water pH ranged
from 6.7 to 8.2, with an average of 7.3.
Figure 4-12 Jenny Lind Turbidity (2011-2015)
Figure 4-13 Jenny Lind pH (2011-2015)
Figures 4-14 and 4-15 present the monthly raw water TOC and alkalinity results, respectively. The
source water TOC ranged from 2.1 mg/L to 6.5 mg/L, with an average of 3.3 mg/L. The monthly
alkalinity results ranged from a low of 52 mg/L to 94 mg/L, with an average of 71 mg/L as CaCO3.
As indicated in Figure 4-14 beginning in the fall of 2014, the TOC has increased over previous years.
As indicated in Figure 4-15, the raw water alkalinity has been steadily increasing starting in fall of
2011. Five years of enhanced coagulation reports were reviewed for the preparation of this WSS
Update. Compliance with the enhanced coagulation requirements for the Jenny Lind WTP is
achieved through a combination of meeting percent TOC reduction required and the use of
alternative compliance criteria as described in the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule.
Figure 4-14 Jenny Lind TOC (2011-2015)
Figure 4-15 Jenny Lind Alkalinity (2011-2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Turb
idit
y (N
TU
)
Jenny Lind Daily Raw Water Turbidity
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
pH
Jenny Lind Daily Raw Water pH
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
TO
C (
mg
/L)
Jenny Lind Monthly Raw Water TOC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Alk
alin
ity
(mg
/L a
s C
aC
O3)
Jenny Lind Raw Water Alkalinity
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-16
JENNY LIND WTP TREATED WATER QUALITY. DBP compliance samples are collected at four
distribution system locations. In January 2014 one of the compliance sample locations, Oak Ridge,
was replaced with the Nall sample location. CCWD collects monthly samples for TTHMs and HAA5
for Jenny Lind WTP. Figures 4-16 and 4-17 present the monthly TTHM and HAA5 results,
respectively.
Figure 4-16 Jenny Lind Monthly TTHMs (2011-2015)
Figure 4-17 Jenny Lind Monthly HAA5 (2011-2015)
Under the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule, compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 MCLs is determined using a
Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA) at each sample location. The LRAA is the average of the
most recent four quarters of results. Compliance with the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule began in the first
quarter of 2014 at the Jenny Lind WTP. However, for purposes of this WSS Figures 4-18 and 4-19
present the calculated TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs, respectively, for each sample location, for the entire
study period. Since monthly TTHM and HAA5 samples are collected, 12 monthly samples are used
to calculate each LRAA. All four compliance locations are below the MCL. All four of the compliance
locations showed an increasing TTHM LRAA results during 2014 and 2015. The maximum TTHM
LRAA was recorded at the Honda sample location with a four quarter average of 64 µg/L in
December 2015.
Figure 4-18 Jenny Lind TTHM LRAAs (2011-2015)
Figure 4-19 Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs (2011-2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
TT
HM
s (µ
g/L
)
Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Honda Nall
Jenny Lind TTHMs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
HA
A5
(µg
/L)
Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Nall Honda
Jenny Lind HAA5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
De
c-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jun
-12
Se
p-1
2
De
c-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jun
-13
Se
p-1
3
De
c-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jun
-14
Se
p-1
4
De
c-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jun
-15
Se
p-1
5
De
c-1
5
TT
HM
s (µ
g/L
)
Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Honda Nall
MCL = 80 µg/L
Jenny Lind TTHM LRAAs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
De
c-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jun
-12
Se
p-1
2
De
c-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jun
-13
Se
p-1
3
De
c-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jun
-14
Se
p-1
4
De
c-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jun
-15
Se
p-1
5
De
c-1
5
HA
A5
(µg
/L)
Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Honda Nall
MCL = 60 µg/L
Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-17
Because ozone is used at the Jenny Lind WTP, monthly bromate samples are collected in the treated
water. All monthly bromate results for 2011 through 2015 were ND.
JENNY LIND WTP TITLE 22 MONITORING. Appendix B, Table B-3 and B-4 present the 2011 – 2015
results for raw and treated water Title 22 monitoring for the Jenny Lind WTP. All regulated VOCs
and SOCs (alachlor, atrazine, and simazine) were ND. Gross alpha result was ND. Low levels of
nitrate, fluoride and aluminum were detected in the raw water, the results for all other IOCs were
ND. Manganese was detected in the raw water above the secondary MCL, however the average
treated water manganese concentration was below the secondary MCL.
DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP
SEWD provides surface water for agricultural irrigation and wholesale treated surface water from
the DJW WTP for urban uses to City of Stockton, Water Service Company (Cal Water), and the San
Joaquin County Lincoln Village and Colonial Heights maintenance districts. The DJW WTP has two
water sources: Calaveras River diversion at Bellota which conveys raw water directly to the DJW
WTP, and Stanislaus River diversion at Goodwin Dam which conveys raw water via the New Melones Conveyance System to Peter’s Pipeline which then conveys water to the Bellota Pipeline or through Peter’s Pipeline Extension to the DJW WTP. During the study period -2015, the
Stanislaus River (via New Melones Conveyance System) was the primary raw water supply to DJW
WTP. Based on a review of weekly supply records at the DJW WTP influent, the Calaveras was the
primary supply of water in January through March 2011, December 2012 to mid-January 2013, and
mid-March 2015 through the end of the year (with groundwater blending during that time). Raw
water can be stored in four on-site reservoirs at DJW WTP, with a total capacity of 120 MG. During
high turbidity events, the WTP relies on the raw water reservoirs for both presedimentation and
water supply.
DJW WTP is a conventional treatment plant. Raw water entering the WTP is treated with sodium
hypochlorite for disinfection and alum and polymer for coagulation. The water then passes through
a flash mix basin, a flocculation basin, and a sedimentation basin. The settled water is routed to
dual-media (granular activated carbon [GAC] and sand) filters. Filter-aid polymer is added to the
water prior to filtration. Backwash water from the filters is sent to one of the raw water reservoirs
for groundwater recharge. Filter effluent flows through the finished water conduit, where sodium
hydroxide is added to adjust pH for corrosion control in the distribution system. Sodium
hypochlorite is added to the filter effluent. The treated water flows to a 10 MG, buried, finished
water reservoir, from which the water is pumped into the distribution system.
DJW WTP RAW WATER QUALITY. Figure 4-20 presents the weekly total coliform counts measured in
the raw water for the DJWWTP. Total coliform counts ranged from 43 MPN/100 mL to 6,586
MPN/100 mL, with an average of 1,052 MPN/100 mL. For the five year study period, the median
total coliform count was 727 MPN/100 mL. From January 2011 through January 2014 there
appears to be a recurring pattern of elevated coliform counts in the summer months of each year.
On occasion there were elevated counts, greater than 1,000 MPN/mL, some over 2,000 MPN/100
mL. Beginning around spring 2014, however, the coliforms results were generally higher than in
previous years, and there were a small number of coliform results much higher than in previous
years.
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-18
Figure 4-21 presents the weekly E. coli results for 2011 to 2015. The E. coli results do not indicate
the same pattern as the total coliform results. The E. coli results are fairly consistent throughout
the study period with occasional elevated counts. The E.coli results ranged from ND to 648
MPN/100 mL, with an average of 26 MPN/100 mL. The median E. coli result for the study period
was approximately 11 MPN/100 mL. In December 2015 SEWD increased microbial monitoring of
the raw water from weekly to five days per week.
DJW WTP operations staff indicated a potential issue with Canadian geese roosting at the on-site
reservoirs associated with the increase in total coliforms. However, as noted a similar increase in E.
coli is not indicated. Lower reservoirs levels due to the drought could also be a contributing factor
to an increase in total coliforms.
Figure 4-20 DJW WTP Weekly Total Coliforms (2011 -2015)
Figure 4-21 DJW WTP Weekly E. Coli (2011 -2015)
Per the LT2ESWTR SEWD conducted two years of source water Cryptosporidium monitoring from
October 2006 through September 2008. Using all results from three sample locations (1) plant
influent, (2) Calaveras River and the (3) Stanislaus River, SEWD calculated a maximum 12-month
concentration of 0.054 oocysts/L (and a Bin 1 classification). After reviewing the two years of
results USEPA, however, used only the results from the plant influent sample location to calculate
an average of 0.075 oocysts/L, placing SEWD in Bin 2. Placement in Bin 2 requires 1 additional log
reduction of Cryptosporidium. SEWD achieves the required 1 additional log credit for
Cryptosporidium by meeting the individual filter turbidity requirement of less than 0.1 NTU in 95
percent of the daily maximum daily values for each filter in each month. DDW included the following requirement in SEWD’s Operating Permit Amendment No. -10-11PA-005 SEWD shall continue to review monthly IFE turbidity data to determine compliance with the <0.1 NTU requirement in at least 95% of the maximum daily readings and watch for any
upward trends. If any filter shows increasing values, diagnose the filter and the
instrumentation to determine the cause of the unusual results and implement corrective
actions to assure continuous compliance with the criteria that allow the SEWD to claim the
additional log of Cryptosporidium treatment...
Figure 4-22 presents daily raw water turbidity. Between January 2011 and December 2015 the raw
water turbidity ranged from 0.48 NTU to 17 NTU with an average of 3.8 NTU. Figure 4-23 presents
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Jul-
10
Oct
-10
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Tota
l Co
lifo
rms
(MP
N/1
00
mL)
DJW WTP Raw Water Total Coliforms**Two data points are not shown on graph: 5,794 MPN/100 mL
and 6,586 MPN/100mL in September 2014.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Jul-
10
No
v-1
0
Ma
r-1
1
Jul-
11
No
v-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jul-
12
No
v-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jul-
13
No
v-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jul-
14
No
v-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jul-
15
No
v-1
5
E. c
oli
(MP
N/1
00
mL)
DJW WTP Raw Water E. coli**One data point is not shown on graph: 648 MPN/100 mL
in November 2012.
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-19
the daily raw water hardness. During January 2011 through December 2015 the hardness ranged
from 16 mg/L to 117 mg/L, with an average of 43 mg/L. Starting around April 2015, there was a
significant, consistent increase in the hardness. Reviewing raw supply data for DJW WTP indicates
a likely cause of the increase in hardness. During the period 2011 to 2014 as indicated previously,
Stanislaus River was the primary raw water supply for the DJW WTP with a small amount of
Calaveras River water supplied at different periods. During January 2015 the raw water supply for
DJW WTP was Stanislaus River water. However, beginning in mid-March 2015 Calaveras River
became the primary raw water supply for the remainder of the year. In September 2015 SEWD
began blending groundwater with Calaveras River supply in the influent to DJW WTP (the
groundwater supply ranged from 37 to 51 percent of the total raw water supply from September 9,
2015 through the end of the year). The increases in hardness presented in Figure 4-23 appears to
be closely related to the use of Calaveras River as the primary raw water supply. (Raw water
hardness for Jenny Lind WTP ranged from 75 to 111 mg/L, averaging 89 mg/L during 2011-2015.)
Figure 4-22 DJW WTP Daily Turbidity (2011-2015)
Figure 4-23 DJW WTP Daily Hardness (2011-2015)
Figure 4-24 presents the daily temperature in the raw water to DJWWTP. The temperature
readings ranged from 1.4 to 27 oC, with an average of approximately 18 oC. There is a consistent
pattern of temperature fluctuation in the raw water. Figure 4-24 appears to indicate a slight
increase in the maximum temperatures over the five year study period. The maximum recorded
temperature during 2011 was 23 oC, while in 2015 the maximum recorded temperature was 27 oC
Figure 4-25 presents the daily raw water color measurements. The color results ranged from 8 to
100 color units, with an average of approximately 18 color units during the study period. As
presented in Figure 4-25 the raw water to the DJW WTP experienced periods of elevated color in
the winter/spring months of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Turb
idit
y (N
TU
)
DJW WTP Raw Water Turbidity
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Ha
rdn
ess
(mg
/L)
DJW WTP Raw Water Daily Hardness
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-20
Figure 4-24 DJW WTP Daily Temperature (2011-2015)
Figure 4-25 DJW WTP Daily Color (2011-2015)
Because DJW WTP is a conventional WTP, the enhanced coagulation requirements of the Stage 1
D/DBP Rule apply. Figures 4-26 and 4-27 present the monthly raw water TOC and alkalinity
results, respectively. During the study period the raw water TOC ranged from 1.2 mg/L to 9.5
mg/L, with an average result of 2.8 mg/L. The alkalinity ranged from 18 mg/L to 115 mg/L, with an
average of 43 mg/L (as CaCO3). There was a significant increase in alkalinity beginning around
February 2015 (with the use of the Calaveras River supply). In November 2013, SEWD was issued a
compliance order (Compliance Order No. 03-10-13R) by DDW to develop a corrective action plan to
achieve compliance with the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule enhanced coagulation requirements.
Figure 4-26 DJW WTP Monthly TOC (2011-2015)
Figure 4-27 DJW WTP Monthly Alkalinity (2011-2015)
DJW WTP Finished Water Quality. SEWD collects quarterly TTHM and HAA5 samples in the
treated water effluent of the DJW WTP. Figures 4-28 and 4-29 present the quarterly TTHM and
HAA5 results, respectively. The results presented in these figures are the individual quarterly
results, and are not the calculated running annual average. All sample results during the study
period were below the respective MCLs. The highest results were recorded in December 2012
when the TTHM result was 65 µg/L and the HAA5 result was 43 µg/L.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Tem
pe
ratu
re (
oC
)DJW WTP Raw Water Temperature
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Co
lor
(co
lor
un
its)
DJW WTP Raw Water Color
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ma
r-1
1
Jun
-11
Se
p-1
1
De
c-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jun
-12
Se
p-1
2
De
c-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jun
-13
Se
p-1
3
De
c-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jun
-14
Se
p-1
4
De
c-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jun
-15
Se
p-1
5
TO
C (
mg
/L)
DJW WTP Raw Water TOC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Jul-
12
Oct
-12
Jan
-13
Ap
r-1
3
Jul-
13
Oct
-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4
Jul-
14
Oct
-14
Jan
-15
Ap
r-1
5
Jul-
15
Oct
-15
Alk
alin
ity
(mg
/L)
DJW WTP Daily Raw Water Alkalinity
SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-21
Figure 4-28 DJW WTP Quarterly TTHMs (2011-2015)
Figure 4-29 DJW WTP Quarterly HAA5 (2011-2015)
Figures 4-30 and 4-31 present the calculated LRAAs for TTHMs and HAA5, respectively. The results
are well below the respective MCLs.
Figure 4-30 DJW WTP TTHM LRAA (2011-2015)
Figure 4-31 DJW WTP HAA5 LRAA (2011-2015)
DJW WTP TITLE 22. Appendix B, Table B-5 present the results of Title 22 monitoring for the DJW
WTP Calaveras River Bellota intake. Table B-6 presents Title 22 monitoring results for finished
water at the DJWWTP. During 2011-2015 there were no VOCs or SOCs detected. Low levels of
aluminum, barium, nitrate, and chromium were detected in the raw water. All finished water levels
were either well below the MCL or ND. Iron and manganese were detected in the raw water, while
finished water levels were ND (iron) or well below the secondary MCL (average treated water
manganese concentration was 6 µg/L).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Ma
r-1
1
Jun
-11
Se
p-1
1
De
c-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jun
-12
Se
p-1
2
De
c-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jun
-13
Se
p-1
3
De
c-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jun
-14
Se
p-1
4
De
c-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jun
-15
Se
p-1
5
De
c-1
5
TT
HM
s (µ
g/L
)DJW WTP Quarterly TTHMs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Ma
r-1
1
Jun
-11
Se
p-1
1
De
c-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jun
-12
Se
p-1
2
De
c-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jun
-13
Se
p-1
3
De
c-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jun
-14
Se
p-1
4
De
c-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jun
-15
Se
p-1
5
De
c-1
5
HA
A5
(µ
g/L
)
DJW WTP Quarterly HAA5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
De
c-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jun
-12
Se
p-1
2
De
c-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jun
-13
Se
p-1
3
De
c-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jun
-14
Se
p-1
4
De
c-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jun
-15
Se
p-1
5
De
c-1
5
TT
HM
s (µ
g/L
)
MCL = 80 µg/L
DJW WTP TTHM RAA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
De
c-1
1
Ma
r-1
2
Jun
-12
Se
p-1
2
De
c-1
2
Ma
r-1
3
Jun
-13
Se
p-1
3
De
c-1
3
Ma
r-1
4
Jun
-14
Se
p-1
4
De
c-1
4
Ma
r-1
5
Jun
-15
Se
p-1
5
De
c-1
5
HA
A5
(µg
/L)
MCL = 60 µg/L
DJW WTP HAA5 RAA
SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-1
Public water systems using surface water supplies maintain multiple barriers in order to provide
safe drinking water to their customers. Protecting source waters is the initial barrier. The second
barrier is the provision of adequate treatment designed to handle and treat raw water to provide
safe drinking water. A WSS provides the opportunity every five years to conduct an assessment of
these barriers and to make course corrections, if needed.
This section presents a summary of key conclusions from the analysis presented in this document,
and a list of recommendations.
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Based on the review of potential contaminant sources in Section 3, Table 5-1 presents the potential
risk to raw water quality for the three intakes.
Table 5-1 Risk Associated with Contaminant Sources
Watershed Activities Potential Risk
Forestry Low
Agricultural Cropland and Pesticides Low
Livestock Low - Medium
Mining Low
Recreation Low - Medium
Solid and Hazardous Wastes Low
Urban Runoff & Spills Low
Wastewater Low
Wildfires Low - Medium
Wildlife Medium
Level of potential risk associated with observed land uses and activities. Risk
primarily based on treatability concerns (e.g., pathogens being a higher risk than
particulates) as well as the potential for the contaminant to enter waterbodies.
A brief overview is provided of potential contaminant sources in the Calaveras River watershed.
The most significant contaminant sources are those associated with pathogens.
FORESTRY – forestry activities in the Calaveras River watershed are considered to pose a low threat
due to the low acreage logged on an annual basis and the existing controls in place. Agencies
involved in regulating this activity include the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL Fire, and
the SWRCB and RWQCB.
PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES – pesticides and herbicides continue to be stringently regulated and
there are no indications that they pose a threat to water quality in the Calaveras River watershed.
CATTLE GRAZING – cattle graze in the lower watershed of the Calaveras River and are considered a
low to medium threat for the Jenny Lind WTP and DJW WTP. Cattle can pose a threat to water
quality due to erosion, nutrients and pathogens. The USACOE has eliminated most of the grazing
SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-2
lands surrounding New Hogan Reservoir, but cattle have access to the North Fork Calaveras River
on private lands upstream of the confluence of the North and South Fork.
MINING – Calaveras River watershed has a number of inactive gold, copper, and limestone mines
and several active hard rock mines. Based on a review of monitoring results for dissolved metals,
there is no evidence to suggest an adverse impact of these mines on water quality for the three
participating public water systems.
RECREATION – recreational use, including body contact recreation, occurs throughout the Calaveras
River watershed. Body contact recreation poses a potential contribution of fecal contamination,
including pathogens.
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES – there appears to be low potential for solid and hazardous wastes to
adversely impact water quality in the Calaveras River Watershed.
URBAN RUNOFF AND SPILLS – there is little evidence of urban runoff causing adverse impacts on
water quality. There are a number of stormwater NPDES permits in place. There are a four
highways that traverse the watershed, but they are mostly inter- and intra- county traffic and do
not serve as major transportation corridors in State.
WASTEWATER – the San Andreas Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges to the North Fork of the
Calaveras River upstream of New Hogan reservoir (surface water discharges are prohibited from
May 1st through October 31st each year). During 2011-2015 the facility received 71 violation
notices from the Regional Board, primarily due to category 2 pollutants such as copper, zinc,
cyanide and residual chlorine. Wastewater is rated as low-medium threat to water quality.
WILDFIRES – Calaveras County was designated with a very high fire risk rating. The recent increase in loss of trees due to State’s ongoing drought and bark beetle infestation raise the risk for faster
moving and more intense fires. The aftermath can lead to large loadings of sediment and organic
matter in surface water runoff.
WILDLIFE – the large area of undeveloped/forested land in watershed and large numbers of wild
animals and migratory birds can be a particular concern. Wildlife is rated as a medium risk to
water quality due to the fact that wildlife, including migratory birds, can contribute to fecal
contamination and nutrients in waterbodies, either directly or through storm water runoff.
WATER QUALITY FINDINGS
SHEEP RANCH WTP
MICROBIAL – during 2011-2015, there was an average total coliform concentration of approximately
470 MPN/100 mL. The coliform results throughout the study period 2011-2015 were extremely
variable, ranging from ND to >2,319 MPN/100mL. The variability may be due to the location of the
WTP intake in San Antonio Creek. While there is no clear trend in the results over the 5 years
period, the 2015 results may be indicating an increase in levels. For E. coli, the results are similar to
the results presented in the 2011 WSS and do not indicate a degradation in water quality.
TURBIDITY – there were four events (days) during 2011 – 2015 where raw water turbidity exceeded
10 NTU and the WTP automatically shut down. All four events occurred in winter/spring periods
and were likely caused by storm water runoff. The majority of raw turbidity results were less than
5 NTU and the treatment plant should be able to produce water meeting the surface water turbidity
SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-3
performance requirements. There is no indication in a trend or increasing turbidity in the raw
water.
TOC/ALKALINITY – there was a large variation in raw water TOC during 2011 – 2015, with a low
TOC value of 0.6 mg/L and a maximum of 8.9 mg/L. Most TOC results were less than 4 mg/L. It
appears that in beginning spring 2014 there has been a slight increase in the raw water TOC
concentration. There is a clear increase in alkalinity over the five year study period. Compliance
with the enhanced coagulation requirements is maintained through meeting the required TOC
reduction or use of alternative compliance criteria.
PH – the raw water pH for Sheep Ranch WTP also indicated variability as results ranged from 6 to
8.5. This could be due to the geology of the area or organic material in the water.
DBPS – the treatment plant effluent results were consistently below the MCLs for THMs and HAA5
during 2011-2015.
TITLE 22 – while one annual sample reported a low level detection of PCE, all other sample results
for PCE were ND. All other VOCs and SOCs were ND. There were no detected levels of concern for
metals, general mineral or physical parameters.
JENNY LIND WTP
MICROBIAL – there was an increase in raw water total coliforms during 2015, compared to the
previous four years. During 2015 there were a number of results reported as >2,419 MPN/100 mL.
The increase in total coliforms could be a result of the low levels of water in New Hogan due to the
ongoing drought. A similar change in E. coli results was not observed.
TURBIDITY – the reported raw water turbidity results throughout 2011-2015 were low, with the
exception of the last nine days during 2015 when a significant increase in turbidity was observed.
The turbidity spiked from 2.5 NTU on December 22, 2015 up to 71 NTU on December 24th. A
review of operational information for New Hogan Reservoir indicates a significant storm event
around December 21-22, 2015.
TOC/ALKALINITY – beginning fall 2014 the TOC results indicate a general increase. From summer
2011 through the end of 2015 the alkalinity has generally been increasing. Compliance with
enhanced coagulation requirements of the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule are met on a monthly basis either
through meeting the required TOC reduction or use of an alternative compliance criteria.
DBPS – starting in summer 2014 the quarterly THM results show a consistent increase at all four
sample locations (however, the fourth quarter 2015 results indicate a drop in THM levels). During
the third and fourth quarter of 2015 several of the monthly THM results were at or above the MCL,
but the LRAA was below the MCL. The calculated LRAAs are below the MCL.
Title 22 – all regulated VOCs and SOCs were ND. Low levels of a few IOCs were detected, but all
results were well below the MCLs. Manganese was detected above the secondary MCL in raw
water, while the average treated water manganese result was 6 µg/L.
DJW WTP
MICROBIAL – there was a lot of variability in total coliform results during 2011-2015. The results
ranged from 43 MPN/100 mL to 6,586 MPN/100 mL. During 2015 the increase in total coliforms is
more pronounced than in previous years. SEWD has increased total coliform sample collection
SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-4
from weekly to 5 days per week. There were several elevated E. coli results during the study
period, but the average of the E. coli results was 11 MPN/100 mL.
TURBIDITY – raw water turbidity ranged from 0.48 NTU to 17 NTU. The turbidity appears to
increase during winter/spring periods and is likely due to storm events.
TOC/ALKALINITY – raw water TOC ranged from 1.2 mg/L to 9.5 mg/L during 2011-2015. In
November 2013, DDW issued a Compliance Order for the DJW WTP to achieve compliance with the
enhanced coagulation requirements of the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule.
DBPs – levels of TTHMs and HAA5 in the effluent of the DJW WTP were well below the respective
MCLs.
Title 22 – no VOCs or SOCs were detected. While low levels of a few IOCs were detected, results for
all other regulated IOCs were ND.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations reflect areas where SCRG member agencies have some ability to
control source water quality within the Calaveras River watershed.
The water districts should continually review data for the presence of pathogens associated
with failing or leaking OWTSs. Continue working with Calaveras County Environmental
Health Department to be notified of any reports of spills or leakage. Work with the County
to solicit funding sources to cover the cost of additional monitoring, oversight, and
replacement of aging systems near watershed waterbodies. Work with the County to
encourage homeowners to notify the County of any problems with their own OWTS or any
leaking systems they may discover; this can be done, for example, by providing public
education billing inserts for customers located in the watershed or through newspaper,
website, and other advertising tools.
CCWD and SEWD should continually update their emergency contact systems to provide the
most efficient notifications of sewage overflows and hazardous materials spills, particularly
at waterbodies.
The water districts should continue to follow technical research updates on water quality
concerns associated with cattle grazing.
SCRG member agencies should encourage Calaveras County to implement Low Impact
Development Design Principles for new development to reduce peak flows (which can cause
high turbidity events) and to remove contaminants during runoff.
All three of the intakes to the treatment plants experienced elevated total coliform levels
during 2015. The California SWTR Guidance Manual recommends a 1-log increase in
Giardia and virus reduction if the monthly median coliform results are greater than 1,000
MPN/100 mL and less than 10,000 MPN/100 mL. While none of the systems exceeded this
trigger, consideration should be given to an increase in disinfection (suggest sufficient
disinfection to demonstrate an additional 0.5 log Giardia inactivation). This
recommendation should only be considered with a parallel effort to study the impact of
increased disinfection on DBP formation and whether the agencies can identify a practical,
cost-effective enhanced DBP control program.
SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-5
SEWD and CCWD should work with USACOE to encourage monitoring of total coliform and
E. coli on a regular basis in beach areas and near the outlet of the New Hogan reservoir.
Work with USACOE to develop total coliform and E. coli triggers that would indicate a halt to
body contact recreation.
Recommend that CCWD post signs stating that White Pines Lake is a drinking water source
and it is important to keep dogs and babies in diapers out of the lake.
Recommend that SEWD and CCWD investigate analytical methods and evaluate the benefits
of monitoring for targeted algal toxins that will be included in the UCMR4 monitoring
program. If CCWD and SEWD implement a monitoring program for algal toxins, it is
recommended that both agencies also develop a plan for how to respond to the detection of
algal toxins and evaluate the effectiveness of the current treatment processes in
removing/destroying algal toxins.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
CATTLE GRAZING AND RECREATION ON NATIONAL
FOREST LANDS
Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazingand Recreation on National Forest Lands
Leslie M. Roche1*, Lea Kromschroeder1, Edward R. Atwill2, Randy A. Dahlgren3, Kenneth W. Tate1
1Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, 2 School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California University of
California, Davis, California, United States of America, 3Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America
Abstract
There is substantial concern that microbial and nutrient pollution by cattle on public lands degrades water quality,threatening human and ecological health. Given the importance of clean water on multiple-use landscapes, additionalresearch is required to document and examine potential water quality issues across common resource use activities. Duringthe 2011 grazing-recreation season, we conducted a cross sectional survey of water quality conditions associated with cattlegrazing and/or recreation on 12 public lands grazing allotments in California. Our specific study objectives were to 1)quantify fecal indicator bacteria (FIB; fecal coliform and E. coli), total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, andsoluble-reactive phosphorus concentrations in surface waters; 2) compare results to a) water quality regulatory benchmarks,b) recommended maximum nutrient concentrations, and c) estimates of nutrient background concentrations; and 3)examine relationships between water quality, environmental conditions, cattle grazing, and recreation. Nutrientconcentrations observed throughout the grazing-recreation season were at least one order of magnitude below levelsof ecological concern, and were similar to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) estimates for background waterquality conditions in the region. The relative percentage of FIB regulatory benchmark exceedances widely varied underindividual regional and national water quality standards. Relative to USEPA’s national E. coli FIB benchmarks–the mostcontemporary and relevant standards for this study–over 90% of the 743 samples collected were below recommendedcriteria values. FIB concentrations were significantly greater when stream flow was low or stagnant, water was turbid, andwhen cattle were actively observed at sampling. Recreation sites had the lowest mean FIB, total nitrogen, and soluble-reactive phosphorus concentrations, and there were no significant differences in FIB and nutrient concentrations betweenkey grazing areas and non-concentrated use areas. Our results suggest cattle grazing, recreation, and provisioning of cleanwater can be compatible goals across these national forest lands.
Citation: Roche LM, Kromschroeder L, Atwill ER, Dahlgren RA, Tate KW (2013) Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation onNational Forest Lands. PLoS ONE 8(6): e68127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127
Editor: A. Mark Ibekwe, U. S. Salinity Lab, United States of America
Received October 30, 2012; Accepted May 30, 2013; Published June 27, 2013
Copyright: � 2013 Roche et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research was funded by USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. The funders did provide field data collection assistance. The funders hadno role in data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Livestock grazing allotments on public lands managed by the
United States Forest Service (USFS) provide critical forage
supporting ranching enterprises and local economies [1–3].
Surface waters on public lands are used for human recreation
and consumption, and serve as critical aquatic habitat. Concerns
have been raised that microbial and nutrient pollution by livestock
grazing on public lands degrades water quality, threatening
human and ecological health [4–7]. Some of the contaminants
of concern include fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), fecal coliform
(FC) and Escherichia coli (E. coli), as well as nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P). FIB are regulated in an attempt to safeguard
public health from waterborne pathogens such as Cryptosporidium
parvum and E. coli O157:H7 and human enteroviruses including
adenoviruses and coliphages [8]. Concerns about elevated N and P
concentrations in surface water stem from the potential for
eutrophication of aquatic systems [9].
The USFS must balance the many resource use activities
occurring on national forests (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation).
National forests in the western United States support 1.8 million
livestock annually, provisioning 6.1 million animal unit months
(AUM) of forage supply allocated through 5,220 grazing permits
held by private ranching enterprises [10]. In California (USFS
Region 5), 500 active grazing allotments annually supply 408,000
AUM of forage to support 97,000 livestock across 3.2 million ha
on 17 national forests. With an annual recreating population of
over 26 million [11], California’s national forests are at the
crossroad of a growing debate about the compatibility of livestock
grazing with other activities (e.g., recreation) dependent upon
clean, safe water.
There is a paucity of original research on water quality
conditions on public grazing lands, and the conclusions of these
reports are often inconsistent. For example, in California’s Sierra
Nevada, Derlet and Carlson [6] found surface water samples
collected below horse and cattle grazing areas on USFS-
administered lands were more likely to have detectable E. coli
than non-grazed sites in national parks. Derlet et al. [12] reported
algal coverage, algal-E. coli associations, and detection of
waterborne E. coli to be greatest at sites below cattle grazing and
lowest below sites experiencing little to no human or cattle activity,
with human recreation sites being intermediate. Also in the central
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
Sierra Nevada, Myers and Whited [13] found FIB increased in
surface waters below key grazing areas on USFS allotments
following the arrival of cattle. However, Roche et al. [14] found no
evidence of degradation of Yosemite toad breeding pool water
quality in key grazing areas on three allotments in the Sierra
National Forest of central California. Examining land-use and
water quality associations in watersheds throughout the Cosumnes
River Basin, Ahearn et al. [15] also reported water quality
conditions in upper forested watersheds, which include USFS
grazing allotments, to be well below levels of ecological concern.
The purpose of this study was to quantify microbial pollutant
and nutrient concentrations during the summer cattle grazing and
recreation season on 12 representative allotments across 5 national
forests in northern California. Specific objectives were to 1)
quantify FC, E. coli, total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total
phosphorus, and soluble-reactive phosphate concentrations in
surface waters; 2) compare these results to a) water quality
regulatory benchmarks, b) maximum nutrient concentrations
recommended to avoid eutrophication, and c) estimates of nutrient
background concentrations for this region; and 3) examine
relationships between water quality, environmental conditions,
and cattle grazing and recreation (i.e., resource uses).
Methods
Ethics StatementPermission for site access was granted by the US Forest Service,
and no permits were required.
Study AreaThis cross sectional, longitudinal water quality survey was
completed across 12 grazing allotments on USFS-managed public
Figure 1. The 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments (shaded polygons) in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectionallongitudinal study of stream water quality between June and November 2011. Unshaded polygons are other U.S. Forest Service grazingallotments in the study area.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g001
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
lands in northern California, USA (Fig. 1). Allotments were
selected to represent the diversity of climate, soil, vegetation, water
quality regulatory agencies, and resource use activities found
across this landscape. The study area ranged from 41u409 to
37u559 N latitude and 123u309 to 120u109 W longitude, and
included national forests in the Klamath, Coast, Cascade, and
Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges. Allotments were located on the
Klamath (Allotments 1, 2), Shasta-Trinity (Allotments 3–6),
Plumas (Allotments 7, 8), Tahoe (Allotments 9, 10), and Stanislaus
(Allotments 11, 12) National Forests (Fig. 1). The study area
totaled approximately1,300 km2 and elevation ranged from 207 to
3,016 m (Table S1). The prevailing climate is Mediterranean with
cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The majority of
precipitation falls as snow between December and April, with
snow melt generally occurring between May and June. Soils in
Allotments 1–2, 5–7, and 11 are dominated by Inceptisols;
Allotments 3, 10, and 12 are dominated by Alfisols; Allotment 8
and 9 are dominated by Mollisols; and Allotment 4 is dominated
by Andisols [16] (Table S1).
All allotments were located in mountainous watersheds with
canopy cover of mesic and xeric forests ranging from 9 to 89 and 2
to 93% cover, respectively [17]. Cooler mesic conifer forests were
dominated by white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies magnifica), and
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The relatively drier xeric conifer
forests were dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and
Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Montane hardwood and shrub cover
ranged from 0 to 20%, and grass and forb cover from 1 to 9%.
Wet meadows and other riparian plant communities covered 1 to
5% of allotment areas, and were the primary forage source for
cattle grazing in these allotments.
Grazing ManagementCattle grazing management strategies on the study allotments
reflect those widely found on western public grazing lands, such as
those reviewed in Delcurto et al. [18] and George et al. [19].
Study allotments were grazed with commercial beef cow-calf pairs
during the June to November grazing-growing season, following
allotment-specific management plans designed to achieve annual
herbaceous forage use standards (Table S1). Herbaceous use
standards are set as an annual management target to protect
ecological condition and function of meadow and riparian sites
[20], and vary by national forest, allotment, and meadow
ecological conditions [21–27].
Cattle stocking densities ranged from 1 animal unit (,450 kg
cow with or without calf) per 18 ha to 1 animal unit per 447 ha
(Table S1). Timing of grazing (turn on and turn off dates for
cattle), duration of grazing season, and number of cattle are
permitted by the USFS on an allotment-specific basis. Animal unit
month (AUM) is the mass of forage required to sustain a single
animal unit for a 30-day period, and is the standard metric of
grazing pressure on USFS allotments.
Foraging, and thus spatial distribution of cattle feces and urine,
is non-uniform across these allotments. Areas receiving relatively
concentrated use by cattle are referred to as key grazing areas. Key
grazing areas are often relatively small, stream-associated mead-
ows and riparian areas that are preferentially grazed by cattle due
to high forage quantity and quality and drinking water availability.
For the most part, allotments are not cross-fenced to create
pastures, which would improve grazing distribution. Where cross-
fences exist, resulting pasture sizes are large (.2000 ha) with few
pastures per allotment (,3).
Sample Site SelectionKey grazing areas and concentrated recreation areas within
200 m of streams in each allotment were identified and enrolled in
the study in collaboration with local USFS managers and forest
stakeholders. Water sample collection sites were established in
streams immediately above, beside, and/or below sites with each
activity to characterize water quality associated with these
activities. Recreational activities included developed and undevel-
oped campgrounds, swimming-bathing areas, and trailheads used
by hikers and recreational horse riders (i.e., pack stock). Key
grazing areas were meadows and riparian areas that cattle were
known to graze and occupy frequently and/or for extended
periods throughout the grazing season. Additional sites were
established at perennial flow tributary confluences with no
concentrated use activities, enabling us to objectively include
comparison sites across allotments with no concentrated grazing
and/or recreation. While cattle use was concentrated primarily in
key grazing areas, cattle grazing could occur throughout each
allotment; therefore, it was not possible to determine water quality
conditions in the complete absence of cattle.
A total of 155 stream water sample collection sites were
identified and sampled monthly throughout the 2011 summer
grazing-recreation period. Sample collection sites per allotment
ranged from 7 to 18, depending upon the number of key grazing
Table 1. Concentrations of total nitrogen (TN), nitrate (NO3-N), ammonium (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate (PO4-P)for 743 stream water samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California.
Nutrient Meana (mg L21)
Median (mg
L21) Maximum (mg L21) Below Detectionb (%) Eutrophicationc (mg L21) Backgroundd (mg L21)
TN 5862.7 33 675 5 – 60–530
NO3-N 1960.9 5 221 51 300 5–40
NH4-N 1160.4 5 146 61 – –
TP 2162.8 9 1321 32 100 9–32
PO4-P 760.3 5 83 40 50 –
Published estimates of concentrations of general concern for eutrophication of stream water, and estimates of background concentrations for the study area areprovided for context.aThe ‘6’ indicates 1 standard error of the mean.bPercentage of samples below minimum analytical detection limit. Limits were 10 mg L21 for nitrogen and 5 mg L21 for phosphorous. Observations below detectionlimit were set to one half detection limit (5 mg L21 for nitrogen and 2.5 mg L21 for phosphorus) for calculation of mean and median concentrations.cConcentrations if exceeded indicate potential for eutrophication of streams [38–42].dEstimated range of background concentrations for the three U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III sub-ecoregions (5, 9, 78) included in the study [43].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t001
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
Figure 2. Overall monthly nitrogen concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 sample sites across 12 U.S.Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study between June andNovember 2011. (A) Total nitrogen, (B) nitrate (NO3-N), and (C) ammonium (NH4-N) were measured directly. (D) Organic nitrogen represents thedifference between total nitrogen and NO3-N plus NH4-N. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal linewithin shaded box is median value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and 90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. Junen= 135; July n= 150; August n= 178; September n= 120; October n= 127; November n= 33.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g002
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
and recreation areas identified, and number of tributary conflu-
ences (Table S1). Sixty-three percent of sample sites were
associated with key grazing areas, 17% were associated with
recreation activities, and 20% were tributary confluences with no
concentrated use activities.
Figure 3. Overall monthly phosphorus concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 sample sites across 12 U.S.Forest Service grazing allotments in California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study between June and November2011. (A) Total phosphorus (B) and soluble-reactive phosphorus (PO4-P) were measured directly. (C) Non-soluble-reactive phosphorus represents thedifference between total phosphorus (measured on unfiltered sample and treated with digesting agent) and soluble-reactive phosphorus. Bottomand top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal line within shaded box is median value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. June n= 135; July n=150; August n= 178; September n= 120; Octobern= 127; November n= 33.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g003
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
Sample Collection and AnalysisIn 2011, a total of 743 water samples were collected and
analyzed during the June 1 through November 9 study period,
which captured the period of overlapping cattle grazing and
recreation activities across these allotments. On each allotment,
sampling occurred monthly throughout the grazing-recreation
season. All sites in an allotment were sampled on the same day.
Total sample numbers per allotment ranged from 40 to 88 (Table
S1).
At the time of sample collection, environmental conditions and/
or resource use activities that may have affected water quality were
recorded. Specifically, the following conditions were noted (yes/
no): 1) stagnant-low stream flow (,2 liters per second); 2) turbid
stream water; 3) recreation (i.e., swimming-bathing, camping,
hiking, fishing, horse riding); 4) cattle; and 5) any activities (i.e., low
stream flow, turbid water, precipitation, cattle, recreation users)
observed that may affect water quality. If algae, periphyton, or
other aquatic autotrophic organisms were present at high to
moderate levels (.20% of substrate cover) at time of sampling,
then these conditions were recorded.
A vertical, depth-integrated stream water collection was made at
the stream channel thalweg [28]. Water was collected in sterilized,
acid-washed one liter sample containers, which were immediately
stored on ice. All samples were analyzed for FC and E. coli within 8
hours of field collection. A 250 ml subsample was taken from each
sample, frozen within 24 hours of collection, and processed for
nutrient concentrations within 28 days of field collection. FC and
E. coli concentrations as colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of
water sample were determined by direct one step membrane
filtration (0.45 mm nominal porosity filter) and incubation (44.5uC,
22–24 hours) on selective agar following standard method
SM9222D [29]. Difco mFC Agar (Becton, Dickinson and
Company, Spars, MD, USA) and CHROMagar E. coli (Chro-
mAgar, Paris, France) were used for FC and E. coli, respectively.
Total N (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) were measured after
persulfate digestion of non-filtered subsamples following Yu et al.
[30] and standard method SM4500-P.D [29], respectively.
Concentrations of nitrate (NO3-N), ammonium (NH4-N), and
soluble-reactive phosphorus (PO4-P) were determined from filtered
(0.45 mm nominal porosity filter) subsamples following Doane and
Horwath [31], Verdouw et al. [32], and Eaton et al. [29],
Figure 4. Overall monthly (A) fecal coliform and (B) E. coli concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 samplesites across 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal studybetween June and November 2011. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal line within shaded box ismedian value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and 90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. June n= 135; July n= 150;August n= 178; September n= 120; October n= 127; November n= 33.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g004
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
respectively. Minimum detection limits were ,10 mg L21 for TN,
NH4-N, and NO3-N and ,5 mg L21 for TP and PO4-P. Organic
nitrogen (ON) was calculated as TN – [NO3-N+NH4-N], and non-
soluble-reactive PO4-P was calculated as TP – PO4-P. Laboratory
quality control included replicates, spikes, reference materials,
control limits, criteria for rejection, and data validation methods
[33].
Data Analysis and InterpretationDescriptive statistics were calculated for the overall dataset as
well as by 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and sample sites
with no concentrated resource use; 2) activity observed at time of
sample collection; 3) and month. Results were compared to
numerous FIB benchmark concentrations used in the formulation
of contemporary microbial water quality standards, maximum
nutrient concentrations recommended to avoid eutrophication,
and background nutrient concentration estimates for surface
waters across the study area. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) nationally recommends and has
provided guidance on E. coli FIB-based standards ranging from
100 to 410 cfu 100 ml21, dependent upon selected illness rate
benchmarks and frequency of sample collection over a 30 day
period [34]. The study area falls within the jurisdiction of three
semi-autonomous California Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs), each of which has established enforceable
standards based on FC benchmarks [35–37] ranging from 20 to
400 cfu 100 ml21. We report study results relative to each of these
benchmarks to allow for comparisons to the various national and
regional policies. For our study, which is based on monthly
monitoring of multiple land-use activity types and environmental
conditions across a broad regional scale (spanning approximate-
ly1,300 km2), the most relevant and contemporary comparisons
are the national U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
E. coli single sample-based [8,34] standards of 190 cfu 100 ml21
(estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators)
and 235 cfu 100 ml21 (estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000
primary contact recreators).
General recommendations for maximum concentrations to
prevent eutrophication of streams and rivers are 300, 100, and
50 mg L21 for NO3-N, TP, and PO4-P, respectively [38–42]. The
study area is within three USEPA Level III Sub-Ecoregions (5, 9,
and 78), and estimated background concentrations for TN, NO3-
N, and TP in these sub-regions range from 60 to 530, 5 to 40, and
9 to 32 mg L21, respectively [43].
Table 2. Percentage of 743 stream water samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments innorthern California which exceeded water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly.
Benchmark
Overall
(% of 743)
Key Grazing Area
(% of 462)
Recreation Area
(% of 125)
No Concentrated Use Activities
(% of 156)
FC .20 cfu 100 ml21a 50 48 46 58
FC .50 cfu 100 ml21b 31 28 27 42
FC .200 cfu 100 ml21c 10 10 6 13
FC .400 cfu 100 ml21d 4 5 2 4
E. coli .100 cfu 100 ml21e 9 8 7 11
E. coli .126 cfu 100 ml21f 7 7 6 8
*E. coli .190 cfu 100 ml21g 5 4 4 6
*E. coli .235 cfu 100 ml21h 3 3 3 4
E. coli .320 cfu 100 ml21i 2 2 2 2
E. coli .410 cfu 100 ml21j 1 2 2 1
NO3-N .300 mg L21k 0 0 0 0
TP.100 mg L21l 2 2 2 ,1
PO4-P.50 mg L21m,1 1 0 0
Results are reported for samples collected across all sample sites (overall) as well as for samples collected at sample sites monitored to characterize specific resource useactivities across the allotments.*Indicates the most relevant and contemporary standards for this study.aFecal coliform (FC) benchmark designated by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) (based on geometric mean (GM) of samples collected over a30-day interval) [36].bFC benchmark designated by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) (based on a median of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [37].cFC benchmark designated by Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [35].dFC benchmark designated by CVRWQCB and NCRWQCB (maximum threshold value not to be exceeded by more than 10% of samples over a 30-day interval) [35].eE. coli benchmark designated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based onGM of samples collected over a 30-day interval).fE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-dayinterval).gE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).hE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).i E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contactrecreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).jE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water qualitydistribution based on desired GM).k Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) recommended by USEPA [38,39].lMaximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40].mMaximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) recommended by USEPA [39,41].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t002
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
At the sample site-scale, we used bivariate generalized linear
mixed effects models (GLMMs) and zero-inflated count models to
test for mean FIB and nutrient concentration (dependent variables
were fecal coliform, E. coli, TN, NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4-P)
Table 3. Percentage of 155 stream water sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California whichhad at least one exceedance of water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly.
Benchmark
Overall
(% of 155)
Key Grazing Area
(% of 97)
Recreation Area
(% of 27)
No Concentrated Use Activities
(% of 31)
FC .20 cfu 100 ml21a 83 82 81 87
FC .50 cfu 100 ml21b 65 61 63 81
FC .200 cfu 100 ml21c 34 36 22 39
FC .400 cfu 100 ml21d 18 20 11 19
E. coli .100 cfu 100 ml21e 29 31 22 29
E. coli .126 cfu 100 ml21f 25 28 19 23
*E. coli .190 cfu 100 ml21g 17 16 15 19
*E. coli .235 cfu 100 ml21h 14 13 11 16
E. coli .320 cfu 100 ml21i 8 6 11 10
E. coli .410 cfu 100 ml21j 6 6 7 3
NO3-N .300 mg L21k 0 0 0 0
TP.100 mg L21l 8 10 7 3
PO4-P.50 mg L21m 2 3 0 0
Results are reported for all sample sites (overall) as well as for sample sites monitored to characterize specific resource use activities across the allotments. *Indicates themost relevant and contemporary standards for this study.aFecal coliform (FC) benchmark designated by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) (based on geometric mean (GM) of samples collected over a30-day interval) [36].bFC benchmark designated by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) (based on a median of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [37].cFC benchmark designated by Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [35].dFC benchmark designated by CVRWQCB and NCRWQCB (maximum threshold value not to be exceeded by more than 10% of samples over a 30-day interval) [35].eE. coli benchmark designated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based onGM of samples collected over a 30-day interval).fE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-dayinterval).gE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).hE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).i E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contactrecreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).jE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water qualitydistribution based on desired GM).k Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) recommended by USEPA [38,39].lMaximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40].mMaximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) recommended by USEPA [39,41].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t003
Table 4. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium asnitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across155 sample locations on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California.
Key Grazing Area Recreation Area No Concentrated Use Activities
(462 samples) (125 samples) (156 samples)
FC (cfu 100 ml21) 87612 a 5569 b 90612 a
E. coli (cfu 100 ml21) 4266 a 2967 b 4368 a
Total N (mg L21) 6164 a 3863 b 6466 a
NO3-N (mg L21) 1761 ab 1661 a 2562 b
NH4-N (mg L21) 1160.6 a 1061 a 1060.7 a
Total P (mg L21) 2464 a 1464 a 1762 a
PO4-P (mg L21) 760.3 a 560.2 b 860.6 a
Results reported are mean concentration for each resource use activity category. The ‘6’ indicates 1 standard error of the mean. Different lower case letters indicatesignificant (P,0.05 with Bonferroni-correction for multiple comparisons) differences between resource use activity categories.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t004
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
differences between 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and
sample sites with no concentrated resource use; and 2) occurrence
of stagnant-low stream flow, turbid stream water, cattle, and
recreation at the time of sample collection. We used GLMMs to
analyze dependent variables with overdisperison (i.e., greater
variance than expected) (fecal coliform, E. coli, TN) using the
Poisson probability distribution function with robust standard
errors [44]. For the GLMMs, we specified allotment identity and
sample site identity as sequential random effects to account for
hierarchical nesting and repeated measures [44,45]. Data with
evidence of both overdispersion and zero-inflation can be
produced by either unobserved heterogeneity or by processes that
involve different mechanisms generating zero and nonzero counts
[46–48]. For dependent variables with apparent overdispersion
and zero-inflation (.25% zeros; NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4-
P), we used likelihood ratio tests to evaluate relative fits of zero-
inflated negative binomial versus zero-inflated Poisson models
[46–48]; we used simple Vuong tests [49] to evaluate relative fits of
zero-inflated versus standard count models; and we used either
likelihood ratio tests or Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), as
appropriate, to compare relative fits between negative binomial
and Poisson models. To account for the within-cluster correlation
due to repeated measures, we specified sample site identity as a
clustering variable in the final models to obtain robust variance
estimates [50].
We also examined allotment-scale relationships of FIB and
nutrient concentrations with environmental conditions and
grazing management. We used bivariate zero-truncated count
models to test associations between mean allotment values of
response variables (fecal coliform, E. coli, TN, NO3-N, NH4-N,
TP, and PO4-P; mean of all samples collected for each allotment)
and cattle grazing duration, animal unit months (AUM) of grazing,
cattle density as cow-calf pairs 100 ha21, mean allotment
elevation, and 2011–2012 water year precipitation [42] (indepen-
dent variables). We used likelihood ratio tests to compare Poisson
and negative binomial models [48]. For all analyses, when multiple
response variables were predicted with the same independent
variables, we interpreted significance levels using Bonferroni
corrections to safeguard against Type I errors. Bonferroni adjusted
p-values were considered significant at 0.0071 (dividing P= 0.05
by the 7 water quality indicators tested) and 0.0014 (dividing
P= 0.01 by the 7 water quality indicators tested). All statistical
analyses were conducted in Stata/SE 11.1 [48].
Results
Surface Water Quality and Weather Conditions Observedduring StudyPrecipitation during the 2010–11 water year ranged from 88 to
173% of the 30-year mean annual precipitation for each
allotment, with 11 of 12 allotments receiving over 100% of mean
annual precipitation (Table S1). Overall, nutrient concentrations
were low across the study area (Table 1). With the exception of
TN, over 32% of samples were below minimum detection limits
for all nutrients (,10 mg N L21 and ,5 mg P L21). Nitrogen
concentrations increased in October and November with the onset
of fall rains (Fig. 2), and phosphorus concentrations showed no
seasonal patterns (data not shown). The sum of NO3-N and NH4-
N concentrations was lower than organic N (TN – [NO3-N+NH4-
N]) concentrations throughout the sampling season (Fig. 2),
suggesting that the majority of nitrogen was in organic forms.
Additionally, PO4-P concentrations were much lower than TP
(Table 1; Fig. 3), suggesting that the majority of phosphorus was
either organic or inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments.
Mean and maximum FC and E. coli concentrations per allotment
ranged from 30 to 255 and 17 to 151 CFU 100 ml21, and from
248 to 3,460 and 74 to 1,920, respectively (Table S2). FIB
concentrations were highest from August through October (Fig. 4).
Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to WaterQuality BenchmarksMean and median NO3-N, TP, and PO4-P concentrations were
at least one order of magnitude below nutrient concentrations
recommended to avoid eutrophication (Table 1). No samples
exceeded the NO3-N maximum recommendation (Table 1).
Overall, less than 2% of samples exceeded eutrophication
Table 5. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium asnitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across155 sample locations on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California.
Low Stream Flowa Turbid Waterb Cattle Presentc Recreationd Activities Observede
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
No. Occurrences 51 692 37 706 130 613 28 715 341 402
FC (cfu 100 ml21) 216667** 7267 212664** 7668 205639** 5665 36613 8468 115616** 5466
E. coli (cfu 100 ml21) 114645* 3563 142656** 3563 115621** 2463 1465* 4164 6169* 2363
Total N (mg L21) 87616 5563 95612 5663 4464 6063 2763** 5963 4863 6564
NO3-N (mg L21) 1763 1961 1961 1663 1962 1861 1663 1961 1761 2061
NH4-N (mg L21) 1563 1060.4 1060.4 1362 961 1160.5 760.7** 1160.4 1060.6 1160.5
Total P (mg L21) 3065 2063 107637** 1662 2063 2163 1062 2163 2766* 1561
PO4-P (mg L21) 1362** 760.2 1162** 760.2 1061* 660.2 660.5** 760.3 760.5 560.3
Results are reported by category of field observation of resource use activities and environmental conditions observed at the time of sample collection. The ‘6’ indicates1 standard error of the mean, * indicates different at P,0.05 (Bonferroni-adjusted), and ** indicates different at P,0.01 (Bonferroni-adjusted).aStagnant or low stream flow (,2 liters per second).bStream water turbid.cCattle observed.dRecreational activities only (i.e., no cattle present) observed.eAny activities (low stream flow, turbid water, precipitation, cattle, or recreation) observed that potentially impact water quality.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t005
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
benchmarks (Table 2), and less than 8% of sites exceeded these
benchmarks at least once (Table 3). Mean and median TN, NO3-
N, and TP concentrations were at or below estimated background
concentrations for the study area (Table 1). The percentage of all
samples (Table 2) exceeding FIB benchmarks ranged from 50%
(benchmark FC=20 cfu 100 ml21) to 1% (benchmark E.
coli=410 cfu 100 ml21), while the percentage of sites (Table 3)
that exceeded a FIB benchmark at least once ranged from 83%
(benchmark FC=20 cfu 100 ml21) to 6% (benchmark E.
coli=410 cfu 100 ml21).
Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to Grazing,Recreation, and Field ObservationsNutrient concentrations were at or below background levels,
and only 0–10% of sites within each resource use activity category
(i.e., key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non-concentrated use
activities) had at least one nutrient benchmark exceedance
(Table 3). The relative percentage of samples and sites exceeding
FIB benchmarks for key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non-
concentrated use areas varied by the individual benchmarks
(Tables 2 and 3).
We found significantly (P,0.002) lower FC, E. coli, TN and
PO4-P concentrations at recreation areas than at key grazing areas
and areas with no concentrated use activities (Table 4). Mean
NO3-N concentrations were also significantly lower (P,0.001) at
recreation sites than at areas with no concentrated use activity;
however, it is important to note that all nutrient concentrations
were at or below background levels (Table 1), and none of the sites
sampled ever exceeded the maximum recommended NO3-N
concentrations during the study (Tables 3).
Relative to conditions at time of sample collection, FC, E. coli,
and PO4-P concentrations were significantly (P,0.0071) higher
when stream flow was low or stagnant, stream water was turbid,
and when cattle were actively observed (Table 5). TP concentra-
tions were also significantly higher (P,0.001) under turbid water
Figure 5. Trends in overall mean fecal indicator bacteria concentrations across sample sites during the June through November2011sample period on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinalstudy. There were no significant relationships between allotment cattle stocking density and mean allotment concentrations of (A) E. coli (P.0.9)and (B) fecal coliform (P.0.3). During the study period, there were also no significant relationships between 2010–2011 water year precipitation andmean allotment concentrations of (C) E. coli (P.0.6) and (D) fecal coliform (P.0.5).doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g005
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
conditions. E. coli, TN, NH4-N, and PO4-P concentrations were
significantly lower (P,0.006) when recreation activities were
observed at time of sampling, compared to sample events when
recreation was not occurring (Table 5). Occurrence of high to
moderate cover (.20% of substrate cover) of algae, periphyton,
and other aquatic organisms at time of sampling was low (,2% of
samples).
Allotment-scale Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relativeto Grazing Management and Environmental ConditionsMean allotment-scale nutrient concentrations were not signif-
icantly related (at Bonferroni adjusted P,0.0071) to cattle density
(TN: P=0.3; NO3-N: P=0.2; NH4-N: P=0.2; TP: P=0.3; PO4-
P: P=0.1), precipitation (TN: P=0.09; NO3-N: P=0.07; NH4-N:
P=0.73; TP: P=0.3; PO4-P: P=0.04), mean allotment elevation
(TN: P=0.02; NO3-N: P=0.4; NH4-N: P=0.07; TP: P=0.5;
PO4-P: P=0.2), AUM (TN: P=0.6; NO3-N: P=0.5; NH4-N:
P=0.9; TP: P=0.1; PO4-P: P=0.6), or grazing duration (TN:
P=0.02; NO3-N: P=0.5; NH4-N: P=0.03; TP: P=0.6; PO4-P:
P=0.6).
Mean allotment E. coli and FC concentrations showed
increasing trends with increasing cattle densities and AUMs, and
decreasing trends with increasing precipitation; however, these
relationships were not statistically significant (P.0.2; Fig. 5). Mean
allotment elevation (P.0.8), and cattle grazing duration (P.0.7)
were also not correlated to mean allotment FIB concentrations
(data not shown).
Discussion
Nutrient Conditions Relative to Water QualityBenchmarksMean and median nutrient concentrations observed across this
grazed landscape were well below eutrophication benchmarks and
background estimates (Table 1) [38–43]. Observed peak values in
nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were largely organic (or
inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments) (Figs. 2 and 3),
which are not considered readily available to stimulate primary
production and eutrophication [39,51]. These results do not
support concerns that excessive nutrient pollution is degrading
surface waters on these USFS grazing allotments [4,12]. Our
nutrient results are consistent with other examinations of surface
water quality in similarly grazed landscapes. In the Sierra Nevada,
Roche et al. [14] found nutrient concentrations of surface waters
within key cattle grazing areas (mountain meadows) to be at least
an order of magnitude below levels of ecological or biological
concern for sensitive amphibians. On the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest in northeastern Oregon, Adams et al. [52] also
reported nutrient levels to be at or below minimum detection
levels in surface waters at key grazing areas.
Our results also agree with other studies of nutrient dynamics in
the study area [53,54]. Headwater streams, such as those draining
the study allotments, typically make up 85% of total basin scale
drainage network length, have high morphological complexity,
and high surface to volume ratios–which make them particularly
effective at nutrient processing and retention [55]. Leonard et al
[54] found that drainages in the western Tahoe Basin recovering
from past disturbances and undergoing secondary succession tend
to act as sinks for nutrients. Several studies have reported nutrient
limitations across montane and subalpine systems resulting in low
riverine nutrient export [56].
FIB Concentrations Relative to Water Quality BenchmarksOverall mean and median E. coli were 40 and 8 cfu 100 ml21,
and mean and median FC were 82 and 21 cfu 100 ml21 (Table
S2)– indicating that the nationally recommended E. coli FIB-basedbenchmarks would be broadly met, and that the more restrictive,
FC FIB-based regional water quality benchmarks would be
commonly exceeded across the study region. Clearly, assessments
of microbial water quality and human health risks are dependent
upon which FIB benchmarks are used for evaluation (Tables 2 and
3).
The scientific and policy communities are currently evaluating
the utility of, and guidance for, FIB-based water quality objective
effectiveness for safe-guarding recreational waters. As reviewed in
Field and Samadpour [8], E. coli and FC are not always ideal
indicators of fecal contamination and risk to human health from
microbial pathogens. Poor correlations between bacterial indica-
tors and pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Giardia spp., Cryptospo-ridium spp., and human viruses undermine the utility of these
bacteria as indicators of pathogen occurrence and human health risk
[8]. The ability of FIB to establish extra-intestinal, non-animal,
non-human associated environmental strains and to grow and
reproduce in water, soil sediments, algal wrack, and plant cavities
also erodes their utility as indicators of animal or human fecal
contamination [8]. Citing scientific advancements in the past two
decades, the USEPA now recommends adoption of an indicator E.coli water quality objective as an improvement over previously
used general indicators, including FC [34]. This guidance is based,
in part, on E. coli exhibiting relatively fewer of the fecal indicator
bacteria utility issues listed above, and on evidence that E. coli is abetter predictor of gastro-intestinal illness than FC. Therefore,
comparing our results to the most relevant and scientifically
defensible E. coli FIB-based recommendations, 17% of all sites
exceeded the 190 cfu 100 ml21 benchmark, and 14% of all sites
exceeded the 235 cfu 100 ml21 benchmark [34]. This analysis,
based on the best available science and USEPA guidance, clearly
contrasts with the FC FIB-based interpretations currently in use by
several regional regulatory programs, which suggest that as many
as 83% of all sites in our study present potential human health
risks.
Temporal Patterns in Water QualityWe observed a marked increase in total nitrogen concentrations
in October and November, driven primarily by increased organic
nitrogen, and to a lesser extent NO3-N (Fig. 2). This coincided
with the first rainfall-runoff events of fall that initiated flushing of
solutes and particulates. The annual fall flush occurs subsequent to
the summer drought and base flow period during which organic
and inorganic nutrient compounds accumulate in soil and forest
litter [54,57–60]. The disparity between TN and inorganic
nitrogen (NO3-N+NH4-N) indicates the majority of flushed
nitrogen was either particulate or dissolved organic nitrogen
(Fig. 2). Consequently, most of the nitrogen flushed was likely in a
relatively biologically unavailable form [51], with limited risk
(relative to inorganic forms) of stimulating primary production and
eutrophication. However, in nitrogen limited systems, increased
biological utilization of organic nitrogen can occur [61].
FIB concentrations were highest from August through October
(Fig. 4), which coincides with the period of maximum number of
cattle turned out (Table S1). There is clear evidence that FIB
concentrations increase with the introduction of cattle into a
landscape, and increase with increasing cattle numbers [62–65].
The observed seasonal pattern of peak FIB concentrations also
tracks the progression of stream flow from high, cold spring
snowmelt to low, warm late-summer base flow conditions. Warm,
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 11 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
low-flow conditions have been associated with elevated FIB [66–
68]. Across this region, stream water temperatures are at their
annual maximum in August and stream flows are at their annual
minimum in September [69,70]. We observed stagnant-low flow
conditions to be significantly associated with increased FIB
concentrations (Table 5). It is likely that the seasonal peak of
FIB concentrations is driven by timing of maximum annual cattle
numbers, as well as optimal environmental conditions for growth
and in-stream retention of both animal-derived and environmental
bacteria (e.g., wildlife sources) [71–73]. Similar temporal trends in
FIB concentrations have been observed in surface waters of
Oregon, Wyoming, and Alaska [65,74,75].
Water Quality, Grazing, Recreation, and EnvironmentalConditionsMean FIB concentrations at key grazing and non-concentrated
use areas were higher than recreation sites, but did not exceed
USEPA E. coli FIB-based benchmarks (Table 4). Mean FIB
concentrations for all resource use activity categories exceeded the
most restrictive regional FC FIB-based benchmarks of 20 and
50 cfu 100 ml21. E. coli FIB-based benchmark comparisons were
generally comparable across sites, with recreation sites exhibiting
overall lower numbers of exceedances; however, the different FC
FIB-based benchmark comparisons indicated inconsistent results
for water quality conditions across sites (Table 3). Similar to other
surveys in the region [6,12,13], FIB concentrations were
significantly greater when cattle were present at time of sample
collection (Table 5). Tiedemann et al. [65] observed the same
trend, with higher stream water FC concentrations on forested
watersheds experiencing relatively intensive cattle grazing com-
pared to ungrazed watersheds. Gary et al. [63] found grazing to
have relatively minor impacts on water quality, though a
statistically significant increase in stream water FC concentrations
was induced at a relatively high stocking rate.
Mean allotment FIB concentrations showed apparent increasing
trends with greater cattle densities (Fig. 5A and 5B); however,
these allotment-level relationships were not statistically significant.
Decreasing cattle density lowers fecal-microbial pollutant loading
[76], which has been shown to reduce FIB concentrations in runoff
from grazed landscapes [77]. Decreasing cattle density may also
reduce stream bed disturbance and re-suspension of FIB-sediment
associations by cattle [78–82]. Attracted to streams for shade,
water, and riparian forage, cattle have been shown to spend
approximately 5% of their day within or adjacent to a stream [63],
depositing about 1.5% of their total fecal matter within one meter
of a stream [83]. In a comprehensive review, George et al. [19]
found that management practices that reduce livestock densities,
residence time, and fecal and urine deposition in streams and
riparian areas can reduce nutrient and microbial pollutant loading
of surface water.
Samples associated with turbid stream water at the time of
sample collection had significantly higher mean FIB concentra-
tions than samples associated with non-turbid conditions (Table 5).
It has been well documented that stream sediments contain higher
concentrations of FIB than overlying waters [78–80,82], and that
re-suspension of sediments in the water column by factors such as
cattle disturbance or elevated stream flow is associated with
elevated water column FIB concentrations [81]. FIB concentra-
tions were also significantly higher under stagnant-low flow
conditions (Table 5). Schnabel et al. [75] found a negative
correlation between stream discharge and FIB concentrations at
some sites, possibly due to the absence of a dilution effect under
low flow conditions.
Although not statistically significant, we observed decreasing
mean allotment FIB concentrations with greater precipitation
during the 2010–2011 water-year (October 1 to September 30)
(Fig. 5C and 5D). It is likely that precipitation during the 2010–
2011 water-year is primarily reflecting snowpack, which supported
higher than historical stream flow volumes during the study
period. This potential relationship possibly reflects capacity of
higher base flow volumes to dilute FIB concentrations. Lewis et al.
[84] observed a similar negative correlation between surface runoff
FC concentrations and annual cumulative precipitation on
California coastal dairy pastures. Our observation that maximum
FIB concentrations occurred under stagnant-low flow conditions
(Table 5) also supports the potential for a negative relationship
between FIB concentrations and annual precipitation.
Our results do not support previous concerns of widespread
microbial water quality pollution across these grazed landscapes,
as concluded in other surveys [6,12,13]. Although we did find
apparent trends between cattle density and FIB concentrations
(Figs. 5A and 5B) and significantly greater FIB concentrations
when cattle were actively present, only 16% and 13% (Table 3) of
key grazing areas (n = 97) exceeded the E. coli FIB-based
benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m21 and 235 cfu 100 m21, respec-
tively. Only 5 and 3% of total samples collected exceeded the E.
coli FIB-based benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m21 and 235 cfu
100 m21, respectively (Table 2). In contrast, Derlet et al. [6]
reported 60% and 53% of cattle grazing sites (n = 15) exceeded the
190 cfu 100 m21 and 235 cfu 100 m21 benchmarks, respectively.
We also found no significant differences in FIB concentrations
among key grazing areas and areas of no concentrated use
activities (Table 4), which contrasts with previous work in the
Sierra Nevada [6,12]. Finally, in this landscape of mixed livestock
grazing and recreational uses, we found FIB concentrations to be
lowest at recreation sites, indicating that water recreation
objectives can be broadly attained within these grazing allotments.
There are three important distinctions that separate our study
from previous work: 1) in reaching our conclusions, we compared
our study results to regulatory and background water quality
benchmarks, which are based on current and best available science
and policy; 2) these co-occurring land-use activities were directly
compared on the same land units managed by a single agency
(USFS), as opposed to previous comparisons between these land-
uses occurring on different management units administered by
different agencies with very different land-use histories and policies
(e.g., USFS and U.S. National Park Service); and 3) to date, this
study is the most comprehensive water quality survey in existence
for National Forest public grazing lands, including an assessment
of seven water quality indicators at 155 sites across five National
Forests.
ConclusionsNutrient concentrations observed across this extensively grazed
landscape were at least one order of magnitude below levels of
ecological concern, and were similar to USEPA estimates for
background conditions in the region. Late season total nitrogen
concentrations increased across all study allotments due to a first
flush of organic nitrogen associated with onset of fall rainfall-runoff
events, as is commonly observed in California’s Mediterranean
climate. Similar to previous work, we found greater FIB
concentrations when cattle were present; however, we did not
find overall significant differences in FIB concentrations between
key grazing areas and non-concentrated use areas, and all but the
most restrictive, FC FIB-based regional water quality benchmarks
were broadly met across the study region. Although many regional
regulatory programs utilize the FC FIB-based standards, the
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 12 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
USEPA clearly states–citing the best available science–E. coli are
better indicators of fecal contamination and therefore provide a
more accurate assessment of water quality conditions and human
health risks. Throughout the study period, the USEPA recom-
mended E. coli benchmarks of 190 and 235 cfu 100 ml21 were met
at over 83% of sites. These results suggest cattle grazing,
recreation, and clean water can be compatible goals across these
national forest lands.
Supporting Information
Table S1 Geographic characteristics, study year pre-cipitation, cattle grazing management, and water qual-ity sample collection sites and sample numbers for 12U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northernCalifornia enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinalstudy of stream water quality between June andNovember 2011.(DOCX)
Table S2 Mean, median, and maximum fecal coliform(FC) and E. coli concentrations for 743 stream water
samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S.Forest Service grazing allotments in northern Califor-
nia. All concentrations are reported as colony forming units per
100 ml of sample water (cfu 100 ml21).
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and staff from the Klamath, Shasta-
Trinity, Plumas, Tahoe, and Stanislaus National Forests for their assistance
with study plan development and field data collection; Tom Lushinsky,
D.J. Eastburn, Natalie Wegner, Donna Dutra, Mark Noyes, and Xien
Wang for lab sample processing; University of California Cooperative
Extension and USFS District Rangers and Forest Supervisors who
provided lab space; and Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and three anonymous
reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments on this manuscript.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: KWT ERA RAD. Performed
the experiments: KWT. Analyzed the data: LMR KWT. Contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools: KWT RAD. Wrote the paper: LMR LK
ERA RAD KWT.
References
1. Gentner BJ, Tanaka JA (2002) Classifying federal public land grazing permittees.J Range Manage 55: 2–11.
2. Huntsinger L, Forero LC, Sulak A (2010) Transhumance and pastoralistresilience in the Western United States. Pastoralism 1: 9–36.
3. Sulak A, Huntsinger L (2002) The importance of federal grazing allotments tocentral Sierran oak woodland permittees: A first approximation. In: StandifordRB, editor. Fifth symposium on oak woodlands: Oaks in California’s changinglandscape, PSW-GTR-184. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service PacificSouthwest Research Station. 43–51.
4. Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S (1999) Survey of livestock influences on streamand riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J Soil Water Conserv 54:419–431.
5. Brunson MW, Steel BS (1996) Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs aboutfederal rangeland management. J Range Manage 49: 69–75.
6. Derlet RW, Carlson JR (2006) Coliform bacteria in Sierra Nevada wildernesslakes and streams: What is the impact of backpackers, pack animals, and cattle?J Wilderness Med 17: 15–20.
7. Taylor FR, Gillman LA, Pedretti JW (1989) Impact of cattle on 2 isolated fishpopulations in Pahranagat Valley, Nevada. Great Basin Nat 49: 491–495.
8. Field KG, Samadpour M (2007) Fecal source tracking, the indicator paradigm,and managing water quality. Water Res 41: 3517–3538.
9. Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, et al. (2009)Controlling eutrophication: Nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323: 1014–1015.
10. USFS (2011) Grazing statistical summary fiscal year 2009. Washington, D.C.:USDA Forest Service. 108 p.
11. USFS (2012) National visitor use monitoring results - USDA Forest Servicenational summary report. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 31 p.
12. Derlet RW, Richards JR, Tanaka LL, Hayden C, Ger KA, et al. (2012) Impactof summer cattle grazing on the Sierra Nevada watershed: Aquatic algae andbacteria. J Env Pub Health 2012: 1–7.
13. Myers L, Whited B (2012) The impact of cattle grazing in high elevation SierraNevada mountain meadows over widely variable annual climatic conditions.J Env Protection 3: 823–837.
14. Roche LM, Allen-Diaz B, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing andYosemite toad (Bufo canorus Camp) breeding habitat in Sierra Nevada meadows.Rangeland Ecol Manag 65: 56–65.
15. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Anderson M, Johnson J, et al. (2005)Land use and land cover influence on water quality in the last free-flowing riverdraining the western Sierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 313: 234–247.
16. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Staff (2008) Soil SurveyGeographic Database (SSURGO). Available: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/. Accessed 2013 May 31.
17. USFS (2009) CALVEG 2000, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest RegionRemote Sensing Lab website. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/gis/data/vegcovs/cvalley/EvegTile33A_00_07_100k_v2.html. Accessed 2013May 31.
18. Delcurto T, Porath M, Parsons CT, Morrison JA (2005) Management strategiesfor sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the PacificNorthwest. Rangeland Ecol Manag 58: 119–127.
19. George MR, Jackson RD, Boyd CS, Tate KW (2011) A scientific assessment ofthe effectiveness of riparian management practices. In: Bridke DD, editor.Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendations,and knowledge gaps. Lawrence: Allen Press. 213–252.
20. Clary WP, Leininger WC (2000) Stubble height as a tool for management of
riparian areas. J Range Manage 53: 562–573.
21. BLM (1999) Utilization studies and residual measurements. Denver: USDI
Bureau of Land Management. 174 p.
22. USFS (1988) Plumas National Forest land and resource management plan
website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/plumas/landmanagement.
Accessed 2013 May 23.
23. USFS (1990) Tahoe National Forest land and resource management plan
website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tahoe/landmanagement. Ac-
cessed 2013 May 23.
24. USFS (1995) Shasta-Trinity National Forest land and resource management
plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/
planning. Accessed 2013 May 23.
25. USFS (2004) 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment record of decision.
Vallejo, California: USDA Forest Service. 72 p.
26. USFS (2010) Klamath National Forest land and resource management plan
website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/
planning. Accessed 2013 May 23.
27. USFS (2010) Stanislaus National Forest land and resource management plan
website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stanislaus/landmanagement/
planning. Accessed 2013 May 23.
28. Dahlgren RA, Tate KW, Ahearn DS (2004) Watershed scale, water quality
monitoring – water sample collection. In: Down RD, Lehr JH, editors.
Environmental instrumentation and analysis handbook. New York: John Wiley
and Sons. 547–564.
29. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE, Franson MAH (2005)
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater: Centennial
edition. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association. 1368 p.
30. Yu ZS, Northup RR, Dahlgren RA (1994) Determination of dissolved organic
nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate-
nitrogen. Commun Soil Sci Plan 25: 3161–3169.
31. Doane TA, Horwath WR (2003) Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate
with a single reagent. Anal Lett 36: 2713–2722.
32. Verdouw H, Vanechteld CJA, Dekkers EMJ (1978) Ammonia determination
based on indophenol formation with sodium salicylate. Water Res 12: 399–402.
33. Puckett M (2002) Quality assurance management plan for the state of
California’s surface water ambient monitoring program. Surface Water Ambient
Monitoring Program website. Available: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_
issues/programs/swamp/tools.shtml. Accessed 2013 May 23.
34. USEPA (2012) Recreational water quality criteria. Washington D.C.: US
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
73 p.
35. CVRWQCB (2011) The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley region.
Sacramento: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 148 p.
36. LRWQCB (2005) Water quality control plan for the Lahontan region. South
Lake Tahoe: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. 55 p.
37. NCRWQCB (2011) Water quality control plan for the North Coast region.
Santa Rosa: North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 13 p.
38. Cline C (1973) The effects of forest fertilization on the Tahuya River, Kitsap
Peninsula, Washington. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology.
55 p.
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 13 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
39. MacDonald LH, Smart AW, Wissmar RC (1991) Monitoring guidelines toevaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest andAlaska, EPA 910/9–91–001. Seattle: US Environmental Protection Agency.180 p.
40. Mackenthun KM (1973) Toward a cleaner aquatic environment. Washington,D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency. 289 p.
41. USEPA (1986) Quality criteria for water: 1986. Washington, D.C.: USEnvironmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards.477 p.
42. USEPA (1987) Surface water monitoring: A framework for change. Washington,D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations andStandards. 41 p.
43. USEPA (2000) Ambient water quality criteria recommendations: Rivers andstreams in Ecoregion II. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 120 p.
44. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling usingstata. College Station: Stata Press. 562 p.
45. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. NewYork: Springer-Verlag. 528 p.
46. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
47. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependentvariables. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
48. StataCorp (2009) Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station:StataCorp LP.
49. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nestedhypotheses. Econometrica 57: 307–333.
50. Williams RL (2000) A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlateddata. Biometrics 56: 645–646.
51. Campbell JL, Hornbeck JW, McDowell WH, Buso DC, Shanley JB, et al. (2000)Dissolved organic nitrogen budgets for upland, forested ecosystems in NewEngland. Biogeochemistry 49: 123–142.
52. Adams MJ, Pearl CA, McCreary B, Galvan SK, Wessell SJ, et al. (2009) Short-term effect of cattle exclosures on Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris)populations and habitat in northeastern Oregon. J Herpetol 43: 132–138.
53. Green MB, Fritsen CH (2006) Spatial variation of nutrient balance in theTruckee River, California-Nevada. J Am Water Resour As 42: 659–674.
54. Leonard RL, Kaplan LA, Elder JF, Coats RN, Goldman CR (1979) Nutrienttransport in surface runoff from a subalpine watershed, Lake Tahoe Basin,California. Ecol Monogr 49: 281–310.
55. Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL, et al. (2001)Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86–90.
56. Hill BH, McCormick FH, Harvey BC, Johnson SL, Warren ML, et al. (2010)Microbial enzyme activity, nutrient uptake and nutrient limitation in forestedstreams. Freshwater Biol 55: 1005–1019.
57. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Keller KE (2004) Temporal dynamicsof stream water chemistry in the last free-flowing river draining the westernSierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 295: 47–63.
58. Bernal S, Butturini A, Sabater F (2005) Seasonal variations of dissolved nitrogenand DOC : DON ratios in an intermittent Mediterranean stream. Biogeochem-istry 75: 351–372.
59. Miller WW, Johnson DW, Denton C, Verburg PSJ, Dana GL, et al. (2005)Inconspicuous nutrient laden surface runoff from mature forest Sierranwatersheds. Water Air Soil Poll 163: 3–17.
60. van Verseveld WJ, McDonnell JJ, Lajtha K (2008) A mechanistic assessment ofnutrient flushing at the catchment scale. J Hydrol 358: 268–287.
61. Kaushal SS, Lewis WM (2005) Fate and transport of organic nitrogen inminimally disturbed montane streams of Colorado, USA. Biogeochemistry 74:303–321.
62. Doran JW, Schepers JS, Swanson NP (1981) Chemical and bacteriologicalquality of pasture runoff. J Soil Water Conserv 36: 166–171.
63. Gary HL, Johnson SR, Ponce SL (1983) Cattle grazing impact on surface-waterquality in a Colorado Front Range stream. J Soil Water Conserv 38: 124–128.
64. Schepers JS, Francis DD (1982) Chemical water-quality of runoff from grazingland in Nebraska. 1. Influence of grazing livestock. J Environ Qual 11: 351–354.
65. Tiedemann AR, Higgins DA, Quigley TM, Sanderson HR, Marx DB (1987)Responses of fecal-coliform in streamwater to 4 grazing strategies. J RangeManage 40: 322–329.
66. Allan JD (1995) Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters.London: Chapman & Hall. 388 p.
67. Edwards DR, Coyne MS, Daniel TC, Vendrell PF, Murdoch JF, et al. (1997)Indicator bacteria concentrations of two northwest Arkansas streams in relationto flow and season. T ASAE 40: 103–109.
68. Lau YL, Liu D (1993) Effect of flow-rate on biofilm accumulation in openchannels. Water Res 27: 355–360.
69. Krupa M, Tate KW, Van Kessel C, Sarwar N, Linquist B (2011) Water qualityin rice-growing watersheds in a Mediterranean climate. Agr Ecosyst Environ144: 290–301.
70. Tate KW, Lancaster DL, Lile DF (2007) Assessment of thermal stratificationwithin stream pools as a mechanism to provide refugia for native trout in hot,arid rangelands. Environ Monit Assess 124: 289–300.
71. Alm EW, Burke J, Hagan E (2006) Persistence and potential growth of the fecalindicator bacteria, Escherichia coli, in shoreline sand at Lake Huron. J Great LakesRes 32: 401–405.
72. Byappanahalli MN, Whitman RL, Shively DA, Ting WTE, Tseng CC, et al.(2006) Seasonal persistence and population characteristics of Escherichia coli andenterococci in deep backshore sand of two freshwater beaches. J Water Health 4:313–320.
73. Roszak DB, Colwell RR (1987) Survival strategies of bacteria in the natural-environment. Microbiol Rev 51: 365–379.
74. Clark ML, Norris JR (2000) Occurrence of fecal coliform bacteria in selectedstreams in Wyoming,1990–99: Water resources investigations report 00–4198.Cheyenne: US Geological Survey. 8 p.
75. Schnabel WE, Wilson T, Edwards R, Stahnke G, Maselko M, et al. (2010)Variability, seasonality, and persistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a cold-region, urban stream. J Cold Reg Eng 24: 54–75.
76. Roche LM, Latimer AM, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing andconservation of a meadow-dependent amphibian species in the Sierra Nevada.PloS One 7: 1–11.
77. Knox AK, Tate KW, Dahgren RA, Atwill ER (2007) Management reduces E.coli in irrigated pasture runoff. Calif Agr 61: 159–165.
78. Jamieson R, Joy DM, Lee H, Kostaschuk R, Gordon R (2005) Transport anddeposition of sediment-associated Escherichia coli in natural streams. Water Res39: 2665–2675.
79. Jamieson RC, Gordon RJ, Tattrie SC, Stratton GW (2003) Sources andpersistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a rural watershed. Water Qual Res J Can38: 33–47.
80. Sherer BM, Miner JR, Moore JA, Buckhouse JC (1992) Indicator bacterialsurvival in stream sediments. J Environ Qual 21: 591–595.
81. Stephenson GR, Rychert RC (1982) Bottom sediment - a reservoir of Escherichia-coli in rangeland streams. J Range Manage 35: 119–123.
82. Van Donsel DJ, Geldreich EE (1971) Relationships of Salmonellae to fecalcoliforms in bottom sediments. Water Res 5: 1079–1087.
83. Porath ML, Momont PA, DelCurto T, Rimbey NR, Tanaka JA, et al. (2002)Offstream water and trace mineral salt as management strategies for improvedcattle distribution. J Anim Sci 80: 346–356.
84. Lewis DJ, Atwill ER, Lennox MS, Pereira MDG, Miller WA, et al. (2009)Reducing microbial contamination in storm runoff from high use areas onCalifornia coastal dairies. Water Sci Technol 60: 1731–1743.
Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 14 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127
APPENDIX B
TITLE 22 MONITORING RESULTS
(2011 – 2015)
B-1
Table B-1: Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant
INORGANICS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 34 ND 170 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Barium 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Fluoride 2 mg/L 4 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014
Hexavalent chromium 0.01 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Sep. 2014
Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate (as NO3) 45 mg/L 5 0.05 ND 0.23 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.1 ND 0.51 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Perchlorate 0.006 mg/L 6 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
RADIOACTIVITY SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Gross Alpha particle
activity
15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2012
B-2
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Benzene 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.013 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Styrene 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 0.156 ND 0.78 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Toluene 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
Trifluoroethane
1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-3
NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS
(SOCS) SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Alachlor 0.002 mg/L 1 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2014
Atrazine 0.001 mg/L 1 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2014
Simazine 0.004 mg/L 1 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2014
SECONDARY STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 34 ND 170 ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Color 15 units 43 15.3 5 68 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 156 ND 380 ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Manganese 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Odor—Threshold 3 units 43 1.0 ND 1 TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Thiobencarb 0.001 mg/L
Turbidity 5 units 5 2.4 0.32 7.7 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Zinc 5 mg/L 5 13.8 ND 69 ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 62.2 44 76 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 11 62 45.7 87 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Chloride 250 mg/L 4 2.2 1.9 2.4 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014
Sulfate 250 mg/L 4 1.1 0.86 1.5 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014
MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY
STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Bicarbonate alkalinity
4 22.8 22 24 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014
Calcium
8 5.7 3.9 9.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Carbonate Alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hardness
5 29.8 24 44 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hydroxide alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Magnesium
8 2.5 1.3 4.9 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
pH
5 7.5 7.2 7.66 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Sodium 5 3.1 2.7 3.5 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-4
Table B-2: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant
INORGANICS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND MFL Mar. 2013
Barium 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Cyanide 0.15 mg/L
Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hexavalent chromium 0.01 mg/L
Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate (as NO3) 45 mg/L 5 0.05 ND 0.23 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.10 ND 0.52 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Perchlorate 0.006 mg/L
Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-5
SECONDARY STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Color 15 units 5 ND ND ND units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Manganese 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Dec. 2015
Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 0.8 ND 1 TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Turbidity 5 units 5 0.288 ND 0.96 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Zinc 5 mg/L 5 56.2 ND 82 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 58.2 49 65 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 5 71.5 57.8 82 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Chloride 250 mg/L 5 5.22 4.5 6.4 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 1.25 0.86 1.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY
STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Bicarbonate alkalinity
5 27 20 45 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Calcium
8 6.09 3.8 10 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Carbonate Alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hardness
5 32.2 22 52 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hydroxide alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Magnesium
8 2.71 1.2 6.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
pH
5 7.67 7.5 7.83 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Sodium 5 5.52 4.8 6.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-6
Table B-3: Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant
INORGANICS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 28 ND 140 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND Oct. 2012
Barium 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 0.124 0.1 0.18 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate (as NO3) 45 mg/L 5 0.6 ND 1.0 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.14 ND 0.23 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Perchlorate 0.006 mg/L 6 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
RADIOACTIVITY JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Gross Alpha particle
activity
15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2012
B-7
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Benzene 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.013 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Styrene 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Toluene 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
Trifluoroethane
1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-8
NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS
(SOCS) JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Alachlor 0.002 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2014
Atrazine 0.001 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2014
Simazine 0.004 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2014
SECONDARY STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 28 ND 140 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Color 15 units 6 15.8 10 22 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 64 ND 210 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Manganese 0.05 mg/L 13 409 45 1100 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Dec. 2015
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Odor—Threshold 3 units 6 1 ND 2 TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Turbidity 5 units 5 2.3 1.5 4.3 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Zinc 5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 125 104 165 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 11 183 150 224 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Chloride 250 mg/L 5 4.6 3.3 5.9 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 15.4 11 21 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY
STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER
Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Bicarbonate alkalinity
6 71.2 60 90 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Calcium
7 19.4 17 23 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Carbonate Alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hardness
5 82.8 66 107 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hydroxide alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Magnesium
8 8.4 6.3 13 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
pH
5 7.6 7.5 7.8 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Sodium 5 6.2 5.3 7.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-9
Table B-4: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant
INORGANICS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND MFL Aug. 2013
Barium 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 0.128 0.11 0.14 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate (as NO3) 45 mg/L 5 0.6 ND 0.93 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.13 ND 0.21 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-10
SECONDARY STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Color 15 units 6 3 3 3 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Iron 0.3 mg/L 6 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Manganese 0.05 mg/L 61 5.9 ND 47 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Dec. 2015
Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 ND ND ND TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Turbidity 5 units 5 0.046 ND 0.23 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Zinc 5 mg/L 5 14 ND 70 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 133 99 202 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 5 198 169 237 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Chloride 250 mg/L 5 8.16 6.7 9.7 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 15.8 11 22 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY
STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Bicarbonate alkalinity
5 72 60 90 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Calcium
7 19.4 15 24 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Carbonate Alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hardness
5 89.2 75 111 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Hydroxide alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Magnesium
8 8.7 6 12 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
pH
5 7.6 7.5 7.7 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
Sodium 6 8.12 7.0 9.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015
B-11
Table B-5: Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water from the Calaveras River Intake for the Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant
INORGANICS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 54 ND 150 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Barium 1 mg/L 5 23.9 20.8 28.5 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 0.2 ND 1 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Hexavalent chromium 0.01 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2014
Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 0.80 ND 2 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nitrate (as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.077 ND 0.271 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.08 ND 0.3 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Perchlorate 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
B-12
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Benzene 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2015
Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.013 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Styrene 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Toluene 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
Trifluoroethane
1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
B-13
NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Atrazine 0.001 mg/L 1 ND µg/L Aug. 2012
Bentazon 0.018 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Carbofuran 0.018 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
2,4-D 0.07 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Dalapon 0.2 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Dibromochloropropane 0.0002 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Dinoseb 0.007 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Diquat 0.02 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Endothall 0.1 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Ethylene Dibromide 0.00005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Glyphosate 0.7 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Oxamyl 0.05 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Pentachlorophenol 0.001 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Picloram 0.5 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
Simazine 0.004 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 mg/L 2 ND ND ND ug/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015
SECONDARY STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER
Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 54 ND 150 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Color 15 units 5 10.8 ND 15 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 162 50 410 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Manganese 0.05 mg/L 5 18 ND 60 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015
Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 5.6 ND 16 TON Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Turbidity 5 units 5 1.28 0.9 2 NTU Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Zinc 5 mg/L 5 6 ND 30 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 104 80 130 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 5 182 147 216 µS/cm Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Chloride 250 mg/L 5 5 4 7 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 10.8 9.8 14 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
B-14
MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY
STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER
Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Bicarbonate alkalinity
5 78 60 90 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Calcium
5 18.4 16 21 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Carbonate Alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Hardness
5 75.5 64.6 85.3 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Hydroxide alkalinity
5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Magnesium
5 7.2 6 8 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
pH
5 7.94 7.7 8.2 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Sodium 5 6.2 5 9 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
B-15
Table B-6: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant
INORGANICS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 1 mg/L 6 40 10 120 ug/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 7 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Barium 1 mg/L 5 24.4 19.3 37.7 ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Fluoride 2 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nitrate (as N) 10 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
RADIOACTIVITY DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Gross Alpha particle
activity
15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2011
Beta/photon emitters 4 millirem/yr 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2011
B-16
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Benzene 0.001 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.013 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Styrene 0.1 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Toluene 0.15 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
Trifluoroethane
1.2 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011
B-17
SECONDARY STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 6 40.0 10.0 120.0 µg/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Color 15 units 5 1.2 ND 6.0 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Copper 1 mg/L 7 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Iron 0.3 mg/L 12 ND ND ND µg/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Manganese 0.05 mg/L 14 5.7 ND 20.0 µg/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015
2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov.2011 - Nov.2011
Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 4.4 ND 16.0 TON Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Turbidity 5 units 5 ND ND ND NTU Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Zinc 5 mg/L 7 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 7 58.6 30.0 160.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 7 99.7 72.0 258.0 µS/cm Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Chloride 250 mg/L 7 4.0 2.0 12.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Sulfate 250 mg/L 7 7.8 4.8 16.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY
STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER
Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date
Bicarbonate alkalinity
7 47.1 30.0 100.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Calcium
7 8.0 6.0 20.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Carbonate Alkalinity
7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Hardness
7 32.3 23.2 86.9 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Hydroxide alkalinity
7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Magnesium
7 3.0 2.0 9.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
pH
7 8.2 8.1 8.2 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
Sodium 7 6.7 5.0 15.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015
APPENDIX C REFERENCES
CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY C-1
ACOE, 2016. Visitation Counts at New Hogan Reservoir, provided by Taylor Johnson, Park Ranger,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 2016.
BOF, 2015. Drought Mortality Amendments, 2015, adopted by Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.
December 9, 2015. Calaveras County, 2015a. Calaveras County 2014 Crop Report prepared by
Calaveras County Department of Agriculture.
_____, 2015b. Calaveras County 2014 Pesticide Use, prepared by Calaveras County Department of
Agriculture. 2015.
_____, 2015c. Calaveras County General Plan Land Use Element Edited Draft, prepared by Calaveras
County. October 18, 2015.
CAL FIRE, 2014. Strategic Fire Plan Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit, prepared by California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection. April, 2014.
_____, 2016a. Incident Information prepared by CAL FIRE for historical fires. Website accessed May
2016.
_____, 2016b. Timber Harvesting Plans, provided by CAL FIRE. Website accessed May 2016.
CDFA, 2016a. California Dairy Statistics Annual, Annual Data, prepared annually by the California
Department of Food and Agriculture. Website accessed April 2016 for five years of data.
_____, 2016b. California Agricultural Statistics Review, prepared by California Department of Food
and Agriculture. For years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
CDOC, 2016. AB 3098 List, published by California Department of Conservation Office of Mine
Reclamation
_____, 2016. Mines on Line, managed by California Department of Conservation Office of Mine
Reclamation. Accessed May 2016.
CDOF, 2016. County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, prepared by California
Department of Finance. May 2016.
_____, 2016. Population Estimates and Components of Change by County, prepared by California
Department of Finance. December 2015.
CDPR, 2015. Top Five Pesticides Used in Each County, prepared by California Department of Pesticide
Regulation from the Pesticide Use Report obtained for years 2010 through 2014.
COES, 2016. Historical HazMat Spill Notifications, prepared by California Office of Emergency
Services. 2011 through 2015.
CVRWQCB, 2016. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Website accessed March –
June 2016.
_____, 2014. NPDES and WDR for Forest Meadows WRP, prepared by Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. February 2014
_____, 2013a. NPDES and WDR for Copper Cove WWRF, prepared by Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. May 2013.
APPENDIX C REFERENCES
Calaveras River 2016 Watershed Sanitary Survey C-2
_____, 2013b. NPDES and WDR for Sierra Conservation Center WTP, prepared by Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board. April 2013.
_____, 2011. NPDES and WDR for Bear Valley WWTF, prepared by Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. August 2011.
Forest Service, 2016. Stanislaus National Forest website accessed March through May 2016.
ICWDM, 2016. Canada Geese Damage Management Control Techniques, prepared by Internet Center
for Wildlife Damage Management. 2015.
LGC, 2008. Water Resources and Land Use Planning, Watershed-based Strategies for Amador and
Calaveras Counties. Prepared by Local Government Commission. December 2008.
Sacramento Bee, 2016. Tree Deaths Rise Steeply in Sierra; Drought and Insects to Blame, Edward
Ortiz, Sacramento Bee. May 3, 2016.
State Parks, 2015. Calaveras Big Trees State Park North Grove and Oak Hollow Campgrounds,
prepared by California State Parks. February 2015.
SWRCB, 2016a. Geotracker, environmental data for regulated hazardous substance facilities. State
Water Resources Control Board website accessed April 2016.
_____, 2016b. Project Facility at a Glance Report, prepared by California Integrated Water Quality
System for stormwater permittees. Website accessed May 2016.
_____, 2016c. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Incident Map, data available from State Water Resources
Control Board. Website accessed May 2016.
_____, 2016d. Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite
Wastewater Treatment Systems, information prepared by the State Water Resources Control
Board. Website accessed May 2016.
_____, 2016e. Regulated Facility Report, wastewater treatment plant data available from State Water
Resources Control Board. Website accessed May 2016.