spring 2006 california runoff rundown newsletter
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
1/16
Watershed Mom ents:
NPS Linkages with Watershed Management
Watershed Mom ents:
NPS Linkages with Watershed Management
By th eir diffuse n ature, non point
sources are resistan t to th e tradi-
tional kind of regulation th at
em ph asized con trol of specific
sources of water pollution . How
could th ese scattered sources th at
togeth er con stitute Californ ias
biggest water pollution challenge
best be controlled?
Almost concurrent with th e
recognition of th e im portan ce of
n on point sources was th e emer-
gence of collaborative watershed
management strategies as a way of
addressin g m any water problems
A N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E W A T E R E D U C A T I O N F O U N D A T I O N
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
Spr i ng 2 006
BY GLENNTOTTEN
T
he em ergence of non point
source water pollution as
Californ ias Num ber 1 water
qu ality issue h as coin cided with
ano th er im portan t trend: collabora-
tive watersh ed m anagemen t. As a
result of the convergence of these
two trends, non point source water
pollution problems in Californ ia
increasin gly are bein g viewed in a
watersh ed cont ext th at allows
diverse stakeho lders to p articipate
in developm ent of collaborative
solutions.
Tradition ally, w ater p ollution
problems have been addressed o n
a piecemeal basis, often with atten-
tion focusin g on in dividual con-
taminants from identifiable sources,
known as point sources, such as
refineries or factories. On ce stan-
dards were put into place to regulate
discharges of those contam inan ts,
it became clear that there were
other activities contributing to
water pollution th at d idnt necessar-
ily com e from poin t sources. Th ose
activities, such as urban an d agricul-
tural runoff, cam e to be known as
n on point source water pollution,
an d to day th ey are Californ ias
leading sources of water pollution .
In This IssueMulti-Purpose Urban Park
Renewal .......................... 4
Preserving Threatened Fish . 6
Elkhorn Slough - Slicing
Red Tape......................... 7
Tiny Watershed, Big Plans.... 8
Nonpoint Source News ....... . 9
TMDL Roundup ................. 11
CALFED ....... ........ ........ ..... 12
Urban Runoff News...... ...... 13
Spr i ng 2 006
Elkhorn Slough, one of Californias last
coastal wetland marshes
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
2/16
Edi tors
Rita Schm idt Sudman
Sue McClu rg
Writers
Glenn Totten
Gary Pitzer
Edi tor ia l Assi s tance
Diana Farmer
P h o t o s
Jeff Beeh ler, SAWPA
California Departm ent of Water ResourcesEmma Gutzler, Urban Creeks Council
of CaliforniaLos Angeles County Department of
Public WorksState Water Resources Con trol BoardCharles Watkin s Collection, UC Berkeley
D e s ig n a n d La y o u t
Curt Leipold,
Graphic Comm unications
The Water Education Foundat ion th anks
all the sources and experts who reviewed
this newsletter for balance and accuracy.
Water Education Foun dation
717 K St., Suite 3 17
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 444-6240
Fax (916) 448-7699
e-mail: feedback@wateredu cation .org
W e b p a g e : w w w . w a t e r e d u c a t i o n . o rg
Pres ident
Michael Arm strong
Execut ive Direc tor
Rita Schm idt Sudman
Laurel Ames, California W atershed Network
Grant Davis, The Bay Institute
Denn is Dickerson , Pima Association of Governments
Steve Fagun des, State W ater Resources Control Board
David Guy, Northern California W ater Association
Jake Macken zie, City of Rohnert Park
Dan iel Merkley, State W ater Resources Control Board
Michele Stress, San Diego County Departm ent of Public Works
Sam Ziegler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The California Runoff Rundown is published
by the Water Education Founda tion. The
mission of the Water Edu cation Foun dation,
an imp artial, non-profit organization, is to
create a better und erstanding of water issuesand h elp resolve water resource problems
through educational programs. The
California Runoff Rundown is published
through a grant from the State Water
Resources Control Board w ith fund ing from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under the Federal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program (Clean Water Act
Section 319). Its contents do not represent
position s of the State Board or U.S. EPA, and
neither organization has end orsed the
contents.
Em ail yo ur story ideas to Sue McClurg, smcclurg@watereducation .org
It h as become almo st clich to speak of a watersh ed m om ent, but
California is in the midst of watershed decades. Beginning about 1980,
collaborative watershed management became recognized as a way of
addressing water quality problems by emphasizing consensus building
amo n g stakeholders rather th an con fron tation between regulators and
th e regulated comm un ity.
Since then , encouragem ent from th e state and federal govern m ents
h as spread th e watershed app roach th roughou t Californ ia. About 300
watershed partnerships are operating in California today, focusing on
wat ershed s as sm all as a on e-mile creek in San Fran ciscos East Bay Area
an d as large as th e CALFED Bay-Delta solution area. A com m on th read
run n ing th rough each o f them is an effort to involve stakeholders wh o
will decide wh at priorities will be pu rsued in th e watershed.
Watersh ed m anagemen t programs can embrace any kind of water-
related issue within a watershed, bu t in creasingly th ey are focusing on
water quality. This issue ofTh e California Runoff Rundown looks at th e
growth of th e watershed m ovemen t in California and projects or plans
th at yield real water quality ben efits in watersh eds throu ghou t th e state.
The case stud ies in t h is issue ind icate the ad aptab ility of watersh ed
m anagemen t to a wide range of watersh ed cond ition s and water quality
problems. x
2 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2006
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
3/16
SPRING 2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 3
W a ters hed Mo ments
CONTINUED FROMFRONTPAGE
within a sin gle watersh ed or p art
of a watershed. Besides taking a
h olistic approach , collaborative
watershed m anagemen t h as the
additional advantage of bein ggrassroots-directed, in con trast to
th e top-down regulatory approach
taken for point sources.
What is watershed management?
A watershed is the land area that
drains to a comm on waterway, such
as a stream , lake, estuary, wetlan d
or, ultimately, the ocean. It may
occupy tens of thou san ds of square
m iles, as does the Sacramen to-
San Joaqu in Bay-Delta system , or
it may be a t in y creek that d rain s
a few squ are miles of urban area.Watersh ed m anagemen t is a process
for addressing t h e water resources
issues within a watershed, and it
may range from actions by a single
landowner to collaborative efforts
involving dozens of stakeholders.
Watersh ed m anagemen t started
about a century ago, usually as
efforts by individual landowners
such as farmers or timber compa-
n ies to m anage th eir lands for
sustainable yields by preventin g
erosion. The New Deal-era SoilCon servation Service (SCS, n ow t h e
Natu ral Resources Conservation
Service) was created in part to
prom ote th ese kinds of watershed
m anagemen t activities, and th e
spirit of th at work has contin ued
through Resource Conservation
Districts (RCDs), an d state an d local
conservation agencies.
Realizing that the individual
landown er mod el didn t work for
all watersheds, agencies such as SCS
and the U.S. Forest Service, which
h ad pioneered watersh ed man age-
m ent, began p romo ting cooperative
watershed m anagemen t in th e
1950s involving more stakeholders.
From th ese efforts evolved th e
collaborative watershed manage-
m ent p rograms seen to day.
Because each watershed has
characteristics th at m ake it un ique,
the groups that form aroun d water-
shed issues may have distinctive
areas of focus, as well. There are
general guidelines for how to form
and operate a watershed manage-
ment group, but each group will
h ave differences reflectin g th e
concerns o f its stakeholder m embers.The origins of the collaborative
watersh ed mo vemen t date back to
the 1950s in California. That was
the beginning of public-private
partnerships that promoted con -
cepts th at later would be called
watersh ed man agem ent, according
to Sari Som m arstrom, a con sultan t
and long-time o bserver an d evalua-
tor of watershed
management
program s. Water-
shed managemen th as gotten a boost
since the late
1980s, when the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA) began to
broaden its focus
from regulating
point-source water
pollution toward a watersh ed
app roach, sh e said. Today, about
300 watershed partnerships exist in
California, about a third of whichare collaborative, m ulti-stakeh older
groups working on issues in their
watersheds.
Watershed m anagemen t is a
shift f rom deal in g with th e sym p-
tom s to dealing with th e causes,
said Sommarstrom. Many water-
shed man agemen t programs today
are or iented t oward improving
water quality, she said, bu t th ey
can take on oth er issues such as
fuel m an agemen t in forested areas
or water supp ly. On e comm on
thread runn ing through voluntary
or collaborative grassroots water-
shed m anagemen t programs is th at
stakeholders decide which prob-
lem s to address and h ow best to
address them .
Wh ile advocates of watersh ed
m anagemen t concede that consen-
sus is som etimes an elusive goal,
taking tim e to bu ild, it usually is
worth th e effort to strength en
support am on g stakeholders for the
projects un dertaken in th e water-
shed. Th e Coo perative Resource
Man agemen t Process (CRMP)
emphasizes consensus in watershed
man agement rather than confronta-tion, th ough it is not representative
of watersh ed man agem ent broadly
defined, Sommarstrom said.
The risin g int erest in collabora-
tive watershed management in the
1980s coincided roughly with th e
recognition of no n point source
activities as the leading wat er
pollution p roblem in Californ ia.
The two concepts
h ave m atured in
tan dem , with collabo-
ration s in watersh edm anagemen t proving
to b e a useful frame-
work with in wh ich
watersh ed problems
can be identified,
assessed an d ad -
dressed.
The watershed
approach also has
become an integral part of th e
regulatory system. Region al Water
Quality Control Boards aggressively
have adopted total maximum dailyload (TMDL) requ irem en ts to redu ce
contam inan ts. TMDLs or the th reat
of their adoption are credited by
some with encouragin g watershed
stakeholders to p ursue collaborative
com pliance strategies.
Promo ters of th e collaborative
watersh ed approach to ut i ts advan-
tages of bottom-up decision-mak-
ing, its ability to involve d iverse
groups of stakeholders and th e
leveragin g of resources m ade p os-
sible by collaboration .
The basic steps in t h e collabora-
tive watersh ed plann ing and im ple-
m entation process are these:
Build partnerships by identify-
ing key stakeholders an d issues
of concern , set prelim inary goals
and condu ct public outreach;
Characterize the watershed
usin g existin g data an d iden ti-
CONTINUED ON PAGE 4
Watershed
m anagem ent is
a shift . . . to
dealin g with
causes
Sari Sommartrom
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
4/16
4 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2006
guidan ce, available at www.epa.gov/
owow/n ps/cwact.htm l. California
also h as provided fun ding for
watersh ed p rograms t h rough several
state bon d issues. For in stance,
Proposition 40 approved in March
2002 provided $300 m illion forprojects to protect watersheds and
water q uality.
From h um ble beginn ings, water-
shed management has evolved into
an im portan t platform for achievin g
improvem ents in water quality and
W a ters hed Mo ments
CONTINUED FROMPAGE 3
fyin g data gaps, analyze the
data an d iden tify causes and
sources of water pollution to
be controlled;
Finalize goals and ident i fysolutions;
Design an i m p lem en t a tion
program with a schedule and
interim m ileston es to be
achieved and mon itoring and
evaluation to m easure
progress;
Im p l em en t wa te rshed p lan
using m anagemen t strategies,
mon itor ing an d information/
education activities;
Measure progress and m ake
adjustment s based on evalua-tion of results shared with
stakeholders.
The EPA lists abo ut 34,00 0
impaired waterways nationally in
th e U.S., with m ore than 59,000
identified impairmen ts. Th e m ost
common impairments are from
m etals, path ogens, n utrients and
sedimen t. Som e waterways may
h ave mu ltiple im pairmen ts (see EPA
Handbook for Developing Water-
shed Plan s to Restore and Protect
Ou r Waters, www.epa.gov/ow ow/n ps/pubs.htm l). Collectin g and
analyzing available data on water-
way im pairm en ts is a first step
toward un derstand ing watershed
problems and identifying priorities
for action.
Comm on n onp oint sources of
water pollution in watersheds
include n atural and hu man -induced
erosion , run off from agricultural
and silvicultural operations, urban
run off, boatin g activities, malfun c-
tionin g septic systems an d aban -
doned mine drainage.
Section 31 9 of th e Clean Water
Act provides grant funding to
restore impaired waters where there
are watersh ed plans in place th at
support a compreh ensive approach.
To b e eligible for grant fun din g,
EPA requires that n ine elemen ts be
addressed in watershed plans. These
elements are outlined in EPAs grant
enh ancing h abitat. Th is issue ofThe
California Runoff Rundown high-
lights ho w no n point source water
pollution issues have been ad-
dressed in th e broader con text of
watersh ed m anagemen t. These case
studies illustrate th e different waysin wh ich watershed m anagemen t
partnerships have arisen th roughou t
California and the various kinds of
projects they have identified or
un dertaken to reduce non oint
source water pollution.
Multi-Purpose Urban ParkRenewal
A
good illustration of how th e
watersh ed approach can
achieve m ulti-pu rpose results
is th e Sun Val ley Park project.
This project is part of the Sun Valley
watershed, which is a subwatershed
of th e Los An geles River north of
Hollywood. In add ition to treating
polluted stormwater runoff, th e
project fil ls an imp ortant gap in th e
local flood-con trol system, re-
charges local groun dwater, provides
community recreation and re-
establishes n ative vegetation ,
according to Vik Bapn a, watershed
manager for the Los Angeles River
an d Harbo r areas for th e Los An ge-
les Coun ty Departmen t of Public
Works (LACDPW ).
The Sun Valley watershed is
located in a h igh ly urbanized area
about 14 m iles n orthwest of down -
town Los An geles that is not served
by on e of th e areas major flood-
control system s. With m ost of the
land surface paved over, even minor
rain fall events have been kn own to
cause flooding of local streets.
Infiltration units in Sun Valley Park will
collect runoff
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
5/16
SPRING 2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 5
earlier effort, Pan Pacific Park, a
flood-control project that was built
in t h e 1980s, Bapn a said. Located in
the mid-Wilshire area south of
Beverly Hills, Pan Pacific Park
functions as both a park and as a
deten tion facility for flood w aters
when needed. Its bowl-like structure
allows it to store water th at later
drains back into th e storm drain
system, he explained.
Developm en t of th e Sun ValleyWatersh ed Plan was fun ded th rough
the LACDPWs $1.6 million in flood
control funds an d $780,000 in state
funds from CALFED. The depart-
m ent also was auth orized to set
aside abou t $8 m illion per year for
five years to finan ce construction of
th e other projects within th e plan.
Fun din g for th e Sun Valley Park
project also came from a nu m ber of
other sources including $5.2 million
from LACDPW, $412,000 from
Proposition 12 bon d fund s,
$220,000 from t he state Departm ent
of Water Resources an d a com m it-
m en t from t h e city of Los An geles
to p rovide a m ajority of fundin g for
maintenance of the park. x
Contact: Vik Bapna, Watershed Manager,
Los Angele s River and Ha rbor Areas, Los
Angeles County Department of Public
Works (626) 458-436 3. More information
on the Sun Valley Park project is available
at www.sunvalleywatershed.org
A Sun Valley Watersh ed Stake-
h olders Group began m eetin g in
1998 un der auspices of th e
LACDPW Watershed Management
Division. Drawing its membership
from con cerned local citizens,
busin esses, environm ental groupsand state and local agencies, the
group looked at four sample alterna-
tives to a simple storm drain expan -
sion project th at could provide
m ultiple benefits to th e comm un ity.
The Sun Valley watershed occu-
pies a strategic poin t in a small part
of th e larger Los An geles River
watershed. Run off from a 49-acre,
mostly residential area above the
park periodically overwhelms the
drainage system and for years had
defied efforts to solve th e problem .The stakeho lders group show ed
that in addition to controlling
flood ing, th ere was in terest in
improving water quality, increasing
recreation al oppo rtun ities and
prom oting n ative vegetation .
After several years of stakeh older
m eetin gs, the group developed the
Sun Valley Watersh ed Plan t h at
would address sim ultaneously th ose
several problems in th e overall
2,800-acre watershed. The first of 18
components, the Sun Valley Parkproject began construction in
August 2004. The heart of the
project is two underground infiltra-
tion basin s that together cover 1.5
acres ben eath Sun Valley Park that
Bapn a said are designed t o deal with
wh at th e coun tys criteria defin ed as
a capital flood even t, wh ich
generally exceeds t h e Federal
Emergency Management Agency
criteria for a 100-year flood event .
Runoff from the mostly residential
area north of the park is directed to
the infiltration basins, where it
un dergoes treatmen t to remove
trash, sediment, dissolved metals
and oil and grease. With th e con-
tamin ant s removed, treated water
goes to the infiltration basins,
where the system recharges on
average abou t 30 acre-feet o f water
per year to a local groundwater
aqu ifer, h e said.
At th e south end o f the park,
reverse-grade piping was installed in
curbs to redirect runoff water to the
park, wh ere vegetated swales filter
out sedimen t and contaminan ts
before the water recharges the
ground water aquifer through dry
wells, Bapna said.
It takes care of flood con trol,
water quality and ground water
recharge, Bapn a said of th e
projects multiple benefits. Besidesthe water-related benefits, the
project also restores nat ive vegeta-
tion and improves recreation al
facilities in an area th at h as been
un derserved by parks, he said. Th e
infiltration system can h and le an
inflow of up to 35 cubic feet per
second.
One of the challenges faced by
th e Sun Valley Park project was to
harmon ize the plan to accomm o-
date d iffering in terests of stakehold-
ers, Bapn a said. Som e in th e com-
m un ity wanted the park to have
facilities for active recreation such
as soccer, bu t ot h ers favored o pen
space and passive recreation oppor-
tunities such as picnicking. The
final plan blen ded th e two goals
with th e flood control and water
quality im provemen ts, he said.
The Sun Valley Park project is an
enh ancement to th e concept of an
Som e Resou rces f or Deve l op i n ga n d I m p l e m e n t i n g W a t e rsh e d P r o g r am s
EPAs Draft Handbook for Developing W atershed Plans t o Restore and
Protect Our W aters, available for do wn load at www.epa.gov/owow/
nps/pubs.html. Link also explains how to order print copy.
W atersheds: Working with Local Partnerships, a report to th e Legislatureby the Cal i forn i a Resources Agen cy (2002), includes an expla-
n ation of watersh ed m anagemen t efforts in California an d recom-
m end ations for strengthen ing watershed programs, and can be
down loaded from http:/ / cwp.resources.ca.gov/ leg_hist2.html
Cal i forn i a Watershed Asses sm ent Manual (CWAM), a toolbox
for cond uctin g watersh ed assessm en ts available at http://
cwam.ucdavis.edu
Cal i forn i a Watershed Netw ork , an organ ization workin g to
develop a coordinated n etwork of com m un ity-based watershed
m anagemen t in California, www.watershednetwork.org
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
6/16
6 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2006
ongoing activities in the Santa Ana
River watershed and the decline of
the sucker. Possible causes include
th e flow regime of th e river, preda-
tors, sedimen t or discharges into th e
river, according to a paper on the
sucker team prepared by MichaelWellborn , presiden t of th e Califor-
nia Watershed Network. The conser-
vation program p lans to con duct
additional studies and to be pre-
pared to address any firm findings
th at m ay lin k river operations or
activities to the suckers decline.
The team h as not un dertaken any
projects yet to con trol disch arges
from point or n on point sources,
Van Haun said, but is identifying
projects it believes will reverse the
suckers decline. One likely projectis th e addition of sand an d gravel to
th e river in specific locations to
enh ance h abitat for th e sucker.
Other projects being evaluated are
th e installation of low-flow culvert
crossings an d creation of buffer
zon es during th e suckers spawn ing
season to protect it from physical
and chem ical measures used in th e
remo val of in vasive vegetation such
as arundo donax .
Meanwh ile, memb ers of the
sucker team have voluntarilyadopted measures to avoid take
(e.g., killin g th e fish or altering
critical habitat) o f suckers in t h eir
regular operations an d m ainten ance
activities (O&M) in t h e watershed ,
said Jeff Beehler, environ m en tal
project m anager for th e Sant a An a
Watersh ed Project Auth ority, on e of
th e team s mem ber agencies. Th e
group is actively pursuing a perm it
from t h e U.S. Arm y Corp s of En gi-
n eers that wo uld include m easures
to avoid the taking of suckers
du ring O&M activities such as
chann el imp rovements , he ex-
plain ed. Members of th e group h ave
an obl igat ion to do n o harm to th e
sucker, but th ey are lookin g for
ways, in th e n ormal course of their
activities, th ey can en h ance con di-
tions for the fish.
Find ing ways to recover the
suckers nu m bers withou t affecting
Wh en th e Santa Ana suckerwas listed as a th reatened
fish species in 200 0 un der
the federal Endangered Species
Act , stakeholders in th is imp ortan t
urban watershed seem ed h eaded
for confl ict over h ow t o recon cile
th e n eed to rebu i ld th e suckers
nu m bers and h abi tat with th e
m an y oth er com pet ing uses of its
river ecosystem . But in stead of
f ight in g i t out , s takeholders opted
to work i t ou t by form ing the
Sa n t a A n a R i v e r S u c k e r Co n -s e r v a t i o n Te a m .
Anticipating the listing, the team
initially con sisted of pu blic agen cies
in th e watersh ed that came together
in 1997 to work with federal agen-
cies and others to recover the
sucker. Since then, the team has
don e extensive work assessin g th e
suckers statu s with in t h e con text of
th e man y uses of the Sant a An a
River th at could b e affected by th e
listing or design ation of critical
h abitat. The river uses in clude an
importan t source of drinking water
for Orange Coun ty, flood control,
san d an d gravel min ing, treated
wastewater disch arge and recre-
ational fishing. None of the activi-
ties h as been d irectly lin ked with
th e suckers declin e, according to
Jim Van Hau n, a consultant to t h e
project wh o h elped form th e team
wh en h e was assistan t general
manager of the Orange CountyWater District.
We want ed to h ead off any
n egative effects stemm ing from th e
listin g, Van Haun said. With out
proactive steps to un derstan d th e
suckers decline, t h e listin g cou ld
have blocked or altered projects vital
to flood cont rol, water supp ly and
transportation in wh at some have
called sout h ern C aliforn ias mo st
imp ortant coastal watersh ed, h e said.
The Santa Ana sucker is a small
fresh water fish, u sually less th an 10inch es long, th at is foun d on ly in
certain rivers of southern California,
includ ing th e San ta Ana River. Its
preferred h abitat is cool, sh allow
stream s and rivers with p ools and
riparian vegetation to provide cover.
Th e team cam e together infor-
m ally in 1997 as an ad h oc group to
look for a collaborative approach
th at could h elp th e sucker while at
th e same tim e preservin g the oth er
vital uses of the Santa Ana River
watersh ed. Fun ding from m ember
agencies was leveraged to supp ort
th ree years of data gath ering to get
a better un derstand ing of th e
suckers habitat, its migratory
patterns, its relationship to preda-
tors, and expo sure to contam inan ts.
On e of the stud ies became t h e basis
for a plann ed conservation program.
Th e assessment work did n ot find
any d irect con n ection between
Preserving Threatened Fish
Seining for suckers in the Santa Ana River
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
7/16
CONTINUEDON NEXTPAGE
SPRING 2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 7
on going activities cou ld require
m uch collaboration and tru st
within th e watershed. Th e Santa
Ana River is a key cog in the flood-
control system serving Orange,
Riverside an d San Bernard ino
counties. Ongoing activities includechan n el stabilization and realign -
m ent an d remo val of in vasive
vegetation. Th e river also provides
an im portan t drinking water source
both from surface water storage
behin d Seven Oaks Dam and Prado
Dam an d from six m iles of percola-
tion basins th at recharge aquifers in
Orange County downstream of the
dams.
Base flows in the Santa Ana River
m ore than tripled between 1970
and 1997, mainly due to increasesin discharges of tertiary treated
wastewat er. Base flows are pro jected
to reach 231,000 acre-feet by 202 0.
Ant icipatin g a p otent ial con n ection
between th e suckers decline an d
increased w astewaster disch arges,
the team has been studying the
tissues of adu lt an d ju venile suckers
for organic or ino rganic residues
out side of acceptable ran ges. Testin g
so far has foun d n o excursions
beyond th ose ranges, according to
Wellborn s p aper.Members of th e team in clude
local agencies in O range an d
Riverside counties, water agencies
in O range and San Bernardin o
coun ties, th e Riverside Cou n ty
Flood Con trol and Water Con serva-
tion District an d several state and
federal agencies. Wellborn describes
th e teams approach as a departure
from a project-by-project focus
toward on e in wh ich al l th e af-
fected agencies work
collaboratively to con serve a
threatened species. Its developed
into a cutting-edge scientific effort
to do good managemen t in th e
watershed, h e said. x
Contact: Michael Wellborn, President,
California Watershed Netwo rk,
mich ael@watershedn etwo rk.org
SAWPA, Jeff Beeh ler, Env ironm en tal
Project Manager (951) 35 4-4239;
jbeeh ler@saw pa.o rg
sources Con servation Service
(NRCS), a San Francisco-based
nonprofit environmental groupcalled Sustainable Conservation and
th e Resource Conservation District
(RCD) of Monterey County de-
signed a program to cut th rough th e
permitting red tape an d get worthy
conservation projects approved. It
reduces permitting to a one-stop
process and offers technical assis-
tance to landown ers for run off-
con trol projects. The resulting
P artners i n Res torat i on (PIR)
permit-coordination p rogram h as
becom e a m odel for sim ilar efforts
elsewhere in California. Its not a
free pass, but it is a fast p ass, said
Carolyn Rem ick of Sustainab le
Con servation , l ikening t h e program
to th e popu lar transit passes that
speed com m uters through traffic
congestion on toll bridges.
With inp ut from regulatory
agencies, a list of 10 pre-approved
Elkhorn Slough Slicing Red Tape
Elkhorn Slough is a 44,000-acre
watersh ed th at straddles
important agricultural areas ofMon terey and San Benito coun ties
along Californias Central Coast. It
is one of the last remaining coastal
wetlan d m arsh es in th e state,
providing a stopover for migratory
birds on th e Pacific Flyway and a
n ursery area for marine fish .
Cultivation of strawberries,
broccoli and other crops upstream
of Elkhorn Slough impaired water
quality in t h e slough with sediment,
pesticide residues and stormwater
runoff. Local landowners whose
properties contributed to sedimen t
and oth er runoff were interested in
improving their practices, but were
frustrated by a com plex and time-
consum ing permit process that
often required th em to get m ultiple
permits from different state an d/or
federal agencies for a single project.
Begin nin g in 1997, a partn ersh ip
spearheaded by the Natural Re-
Migratory birds on the
Pacific Flyway.
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
8/16
CONTINUED ONPAGE 12
8 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2006
conservation practices was adopted
to stream lin e permitting for lan d-
own ers in th e watersh ed. NRCS
h olds a master permit un der the
program th at constitutes a pre-
approval of projects that benefit th e
watersh ed. Land own ers who con-tact NRCS are referred into th e
permit-streamlining p rogram and
given techn ical assistan ce and
sometimes partial funding for their
projects, Remick said. If a land-
own er fails to follow con dition s of
th e permit, it can be revoked an d
th e landown er subject to pen alties,
she said.
Each ind ividu al project is tailored
to m atch up with cond i t ions of the
master permit, so individual project
permits can take som e time to wo rkout , Rem ick said. Everybody gets
someth ing out of th e permit-
streamlining program. It makes it
easier for m ore land own ers to
un dertake an d carry out p rojects to
improve the watersh ed, an d both
permit-issuing agencies and land-
own ers are freed from t h e burden of
processing individual permit appli-
cations, she said.
A 2004 report on PIRs first five
years lists do zens of pro jects th at
were proposed for coverage underth e master permit, most of th em to
control sedimen t. An oth er report
credits the program with preven ting
m ore than 50,000 tons of soil from
erodin g off agricultural operation s
in th e watershed, enou gh to fil l a
line of full-size pickup trucks
stretching m ore than 400 m iles.
The program h as been successful
enou gh in th e Elkh orn Slough th at
th e concept is being exported to
other areas. Remick said similar
projects have been tried in a half-
dozen coastal counties, and Sustain-
able Con servation is working with
RCDs in th e Cen tral Valley to
transplant i t th ere. Sh e credited th e
RCDs as a crucial lin k in th e
Elkhorn Slough program between
Sustainable Conservation, regulators
and landowners. x
Contact: Carolyn Rem ick, Sustainable
Conservation, (415) 977-0380
One of Californias smaller
watersheds has big lessons
to teach others about
developin g a watershed m anage-
m ent initiative that in cludes projects
to reduce non point source runoff
an d imp rove habitat for steelh ead
trout. The tiny Cod orn ices Creek
watersh ed is about o n e square m ile
surround ing a two-mile-long creek
th at run s from th e hills above the
cities of Albany and Berkeley to
San Fran cisco Bay.
In th e mid-1990s, neigh borho od
associations in th e up per watersh ed
learned that Codornices Creek is a
spawning area for steelhead trout,
according to Em m a Gut zler, restora-
tion coordinator for the Urban
Creeks Coun cil . Th e n eighborh ood
groups asked th e creeks coun cil to
h elp identify any problems in th e
watersh ed to steelhead m igration .
Soon , biologists h ad iden tified
h abitat types in th e watershed,
erosion sites that contributed
sedimen t to th e creek and barriers
to fish passage such as culverts.
Stud ies also were un dertaken to
look for possible toxic pollutan ts,
including diazin on and polyarom atic
hydrocarbons, but test results for
th ose contam inan ts were below
detection lim its, she said.
From its h um ble begin n ing as a
neighborh ood concern, the num ber
of stakeh olders in volved with
restoring Codornices Creek has
grown to include th e cities of
Tiny Watershed, Big Plans
Erosion exposes tree roots
along Codornices Creek
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
9/16
EPA Releases
Watershed
Handbook
A414-page guide to the
watershed plann ing process
was issued in Jan uary by th e
U.S. En vironm en tal Protection
Agency. The draft h an dbo ok covers
eigh t key parts of th e watershedplann ing process, including mo n i-
toring and assessment , com m un ity
outreach, best m anagemen t prac-
tices, imp lem entation , feedback an d
plan adjustmen t .
The h andbook is inten ded to
supplemen t existin g watershed
plann ing guides that h ave been
developed by agen cies, un iversities
and o th er n on profit organ izations.
However, it provides more specific
guidance on quan tifying existin g
pollutant loads, developing esti-mates of load reductions required to
meet water-quality standards,
developing effective management
measures and tracking progress once
a plan is implemen ted.
EPA is m aking th e draft han d-
boo k available so it can b e used an d
tested. Feedback from a variety of
watershed partnerships will be
con sidered as the agen cy develops a
fin al version . Comm ents on th e
draft han dbook m ay be submitted
until June 30, 2006, to
watershedh an dbo [email protected]. To
download a copy of the han dbook,
visit www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
watershed_handbook. A free copy
can b e ordered by callin g (800) 490-
9198 or by sen ding an e-m ail
request to n cepim al@on e.net. Wh en
orderin g by telephon e or e-mail,
reference EPA document number
EPA 841-B-05-005. x
SPRING 2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 9
Section 4514(c) provides that
approval of a timber-harvesting
plan does not l imit the power of
any state agency in th e enforcement
or adm inistration of any provision
of law wh ich it is specifically aut h o-
rized or requ ired to en force oradminister. xWater Boards RetainAuthority over Loggin g
The State Water Resources
Control Board and its regional
boards retain power to require
water-quality protection measures
after the Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection has approved a
timber-harvest plan, the California
Suprem e Court concluded in a
Jan uary 30 decision (Pacific Lum ber
Co. v. State W ater Resources Cont rolBoard, No. S12464).
The decision uph eld th e abili ty
of the water boards to require
comp liance by t imber-h arvestin g
operations with nonpoint source
water-quality requirements in basin
plans. In this case, the court held
that m onitor ing required by th e
State Water Board cou ld be enforced
even if th e mo n itorin g is not
specifically requ ired by th e ap pli-
cable timber-harvest plan approved
by the Department of Forestry.
The case invo lved a timber-
h arvest p lan filed by Pacific Lum ber
Co. to log 700 acres of trees in t h e
Elk River watershed. The Depart-
m en t of Forestry appro ved Pacific
Lum bers plan in 2001, but th e
North Coast Region al Water Quality
Con trol Board objected, no ting th at
Pacific Lumber had not proposed a
water-quality mon itorin g plan to
comply with the regional boards
basin p lan. Respon din g to a Pacific
Lum ber appeal, th e State Water
Board upheld the regional boards
auth ority to require the mo n itorin g,
but determined that on ly two
m on itorin g station s were required,
n ot five as the region al board h ad
recommended.
A trial court sided with PacificLum ber, but a th ree-judge app ellate
court ruled that approval of a
timber-h arvest plan u n der the
Forest Practice Act does not limit
th e authority of ano th er state
agency, such as th e State Water
Board, to en force its water-quality
laws and regulation s. Th e State
Supreme Court unanimously upheld
th e app ellate courts decision , wh ich
rejected Pacific Lumbers contention
th at th e State Water Board lacked
authori ty to add to th e condi t ions
of an approved tim ber-h arvest plan.
Non point source run off from
timber-h arvesting operation s h as
been cited as a cause of degradation
of North Co ast streams for man y
years, con tributin g large amou n ts
of sediment that can clog creeks
an d rivers an d im pair fish p assage.
The court foun d th at a savin gs
clause in Public Resources Code
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
10/16
Pact to Prevent Mine Run off
NPS News
Th e California Departmen t of
Parks and Recreation and th e
Deltakeeper Chapter of
Baykeeper signed an agreem en t in
Janu ary to preven t m ercury runoff
from en tering Little Wolf Creek
from Em pire Mine State H istoric
Park n ear Grass Valley. The clean up
work will involve remediation of
h azardous m ine tailin gs an d sedi-
men ts at th e park and adopt ion of
m easures to m on itor dischargesfrom th e mine and prevent con-
tamin ated storm water from enter-
ing Little Wolf Creek, a tributary of
th e Sacramen to River.
The state parks departmen t
purchased the un dergroun d Em pire
Mine and 800 surroun ding acres of
land in th e m id-1970s as a h istoric
site. A cent ury of m inin g at th e site
produced 175 ton s of gold but also
left beh ind to xic contam inan ts such
as mercury, cadmium , lead an d
arsen ic that are m obilized by storm
events.
Und er the agreem ent, Deltakeeper
will work with th e parks departm ent
to ensure that p ollution -prevention
measures provide sufficient protec-
tions from stormwater drainage off
construction sites and m ine tailings
piles and t h at h azardous waste does
not continue to p resent a danger to
the environment. The parks depart-
1 0 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2006
Th e Los An geles Region al
Water Quality Con trol Board
adopted a cond ition al waiver
in Decem ber for run off discharges
men t h as requested $5 m illion in th e
2006-07 state bud get for th e cleanu p
work and to tackle year-roun d
discharge from th e Magen ta Drain ,
which drains more th an 300 miles of
abandon ed m ine shafts at the park.
The settlem ent agreem ent en ds afederal lawsuit brou ght by
Deltakeeper in 2004 alleging th at
the parks departmen t h ad not
obtained proper permits for dis-
charges from Em pire Mine park.
By reaching this agreement, both
parties ensure th at state resources
will go to clean u p th e pollution at
th e mine an d n ot to protracted legal
battles, said Layn e Driedrich of
Lawyers for Clean Water, who
represented Deltakeeper in the
litigation. x
L.A. Water Board AdoptsAg. Waiver
from irrigated agricultural lands.
The Los Angeles Region al Board
(Region 4 ) joins Region 3 (Cent ral
Coast) and Region 5 (Central
Mercury was
used during the
Gold Rush to
separate gold
from sand, dirt
and rocks.
Th e Los An geles
agricultural waiver
covers orchard
operations.
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
11/16
NPS News
North Coas t (Regio n 1 )Region al Board app roved Decem ber 7 a TMDL for se d i m e n t a n d
w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e i n t h e Sc o t t R i v erCon tact: Bryan M cFadin , 707/576-2751
San Fran ci sco Bay (Regio n 2 )Region al Board ap proved Novem ber 16 a TMDL for d i a zi n o n a n d
pes t i c i de -re l a t ed tox i c i ty i n urban creeks
Con tact: Bill Joh n son , 510/622 -2354; link to staff report at :
www.w aterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/Agenda/11-16-05 /11 -16-05-
10ss2.pdf
Los Ang eles (Region 4)State Water Board Octo ber 20 ap proved a TMDL for t o x i c p o l l u t a n t s
i n s ed i m ent i n B a l l ona Creek Es tuary
Con tact: Rebecca Christman n , 213/576-6757; lin k to staff report is
available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/agendas/2005/october/1020-
06revised.pdf
State Water Board Octo ber 20 ap proved a TMDL for m e t a l s i n t h e Lo s
Ange l e s Ri ver and t r i butar i e s
Con tact: Jenn y Newm an , 213/576-6808, link to staff report is avail-
able at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/agendas/2005/october/1020-
07revised.pdf
State Water Board Octo ber 20 ap proved a TMDL for m e t a l s i n B a l l o n a
Creek
Link to staff report is available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/agendas/
2005/october/1020-08revised.pdf
State Water Board app roved Janu ary 15 a TMDL for t o x i c p o l l u t a n t s( copper , l ead , z i nc , P CB s and ch l o rdan e) i n Mar i na de l Rey
Harbor
Con tact: Gin achi Am ah, 213/576-6685
Cen tral Val ley (Region 5)State Water Board Octo ber 20 ap proved a TMDL for c o n t r o l o f s a lt
a n d b o r o n d i sc h a r g e s in t o t h e l o w e r Sa n Jo a q u i n R iv e r
Con tact: Les Grober, 916/464-4851; link to staff report is available at
www.w aterboards.ca.gov/agenda/2005/october/1020-10 .pdf
Central Valley Regional Water Board October 21 approved a TMDL for
m ercury i n th e Cache Creek w atershed
Con tact: Jan is Cooke, 916/4 64-4672; link to staff report is available
at : ww w.wat erboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/programs/ tm dl/Cache-SulphurCreek/cache-ck-hg-final-rpt-oct05.pdf
Central Valley Regional Water Board proposed a TMDL for n u t r i e n t s in
Clear Lak e
Con tact: Lori Webber, En vironm en tal Scien tist, 916/474-4645; lin k
to staff techn ical report is available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/
centralvalley/program s/tm dl/clearlake_nutrient_tm dl.ht m l
SPRING 2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 1 1
Valley) as the t h ird region al board
to adop t a con di t ional waiver
program. Like th e oth ers, th e Los
An geles Region al Board s pro gram
allows growers to enroll individu-
ally or in groups.
The n ewest con di t ional waiverappl ies to abo ut 263,000 acres of
i r rigated lan d in Region 4, wh ich
covers the coastal watersh eds in
Los Angeles and Ventura counties
and small port ions of Kern an d
San ta Barbara coun ties. Th ere are
an est im ated 4,000 agricul tural
opera t ions in th e region . Un der
th e program, growers may apply
for a conditional waiver of waste
disch arge requ irem ent s covering
runoff from irrigated agricultural
operat ions. The con di t ional waiverinc ludes requi remen ts to m on i tor
tailwater, wastewater an d
storm water discha rges for a variety
of contaminants , including sedi-
ment , chemicals and metals .
The five-year pro gram is esti-
m ated to cost about $500,000 per
year, wh ich will be paid b y fees
assessed o n growers. Th e Los
An geles Regiona l Board estimat ed
th e first-year cost per grow er at
$240. Ind ividual growers and
group s of growers are expected t osubm it not ices of in ten t to enrol l
in th e program by October 2006.
Wh en a n ot ice of in ten t i s ap-
proved, the grower m ust comp lete
eigh t ho urs of t raining on water
qual i ty management pract ices that
con trol d isch arges. Th e first
ann ual mon i toring repor t s a re due
on e year af ter a n ot ice of inten t is
approved by th e region al board.
For more in format ion on th e
Los An geles Region al Board s
cond i t ion al waiver, con tact
Rebecca Veiga Nascim en to at (213)
576-6661. To obtain copies of
Region 4 con di t ional waiver
docum ents , visi t
www.waterboards.ca.gov/
losangeles/html/permits /waivers/
waivers .html x
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
12/16
W at e rs h e d Mom e n t s
CONTINUED FROMPAGE 8
1 2 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2006
Easily the largest single water
shed m anagemen t effort in
th e state is occurrin g un der
th e um brella of th e CALFED Bay-
De l ta P rogram . CALFED h as
funded dozens of assessments,
projects, m on itorin g an d m anage-
m ent m easures throughout i tssolution area, which encom passes
m uch of north ern Californ ia,
th ough projects have reached in to
south ern California as well.
Established in 1998, the CALFED
watershed program works with
communities at a watershed level to
achieve its overarch ing goals of
restoring ecosystem h ealth to th e
Sacramen to-San Joaqu in Delta
region and improving overall water
management. The watershed pro-
gram has tried to integrate a water-
shed ap proach int o th e CALFED
program as a whole by providing
technical and financial assistance
for watersh ed activities that h elp
CALFED ach ieve its goals.
In its first roun d o f gran ts,
CALFED funded 53 projects stretch-
ing across five region s th at are
connected to the Bay-Delta water-
shed. Grant projects awarded in
2001 are summarized by following
region al links at h ttp ://calwater.
ca.gov/Programs/Watershed/
WatershedGrantsCatalogue.shtml
Exam ples of projects fun ded b y
CALFEDs watershed program
include the following:
Farmers in seven count ies of th e Sacramen to River water-
shed learned best m anagemen t
pract ices (BMPs) and calibra-
tion techniques for pesticide
sprayers to minimize runoff of
organ oph osphate (OP) pesti-
cides. Th e program in volved a
th ree-year outreach and
education cam paign directed
by th e Coalition for Urban/
Rural En vironm en tal Steward-
ship (CURES), a nonprofit
group th at supports educa-
tion al efforts focusing o n
judicious use of pesticides.
Deer Creek Watershed Con ser-
vancy helped individual ranch-
ers develop ran ch p lans to
improve water quality and
riparian areas. Assistance
included mapping, develop-
ment of erosion control mea-
sures, grasslands m anagem ent
Berkeley an d Albany an d a variety
of federal and state agencies,
Gutzler said. A watersh ed cou n cil
emerged in 2005 with representa-
t ion from neighborho od groups,businesses, th e cities, and agencies
such as the U.S. En viron m en tal
Protection Agen cy an d th e state
Departm ent o f Fish and Game, she
said. After a year of inform al
meetings, the council recently
hired a watersh ed coordinator to
oversee a more formal process for
m anaging projects to imp rove the
watershed.
Restoration projects are bein g
drafted for this sum m er to control
erosion from creek ban ks at St.Marys College High Sch oo l, a
second ary school in th e upper
watershed. Th ese will in clude
redesignin g th e schoo ls drainage
system, sloping the creek bank and
using soil bioengineering tech-
niques to reduce erosion, Gutzler
said. Students at the school are
growing native plants to replace
invasive species such as eucalyptus
and n asturtium , she said. Oth er
projects include alterin g th e chan -
nel bed along a 500-foot reach ofCodorn ices Creek and construction
of a step pool sequen ce down stream
of Albina Ave. to en h an ce fish
passage th rough th is existin g barrier
to th e upper watershed.
Thou gh t iny when compared
with m any watersh ed programs, the
Codorn ices Creek Watersh ed Cou n-
cil illustrates how neighborhood
groups and others can coalesce
aroun d small projects and build on
them toward m ore comprehen sive
restoration p rojects. In th e m ean-
time, m embers of th e watershed
coun cil have learn ed mu ch about
th eir small watersh ed an d wh at i t
needs to maintain h ealthy habi tat
for steelhead. There are th ings
th ere th at you would n ever im agin e
to be th ere, says Gutzler. x
Contact: Emma Gutzler, Restoration
Coordinator, Urban Creeks Coun cil of
California, (510) 540-6669.
CALFED
Farmers in seven count ies of the
Sacramento River watershed learned
best management practices to minimize
pesticide runoff through a CALFED- funded watershed program.
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
13/16
SPRING 2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 1 3
and imp rovemen ts to
protect against contam i-
nated runoff.
Several projects to reduce
erosion , remove in vasive
plant species an d con trol
floodin g were plan n edunder a CALFED grant for
Lower Putah Creek water-
shed east o f Lake Berryessa.
Parry Klassen , execut ive
director of CURES, credited the
OP pesticides project with h elp-
ing to reduce diazinon levels in
th e Sacramen to an d Feather
rivers to below the total maxi-
m um daily load (TMDL).
Diazino n pesticide levels wen t
down over th e period of the
project from 2002 to 2005,Klassen said.
The p roject raised awareness
about pesticide man agem ent
strategies among growers in the
Sacramen to River watersh ed.
BMP posters an d ot h er pub lica-
tions were created and provided
to growers and employees in
English, Spanish and Punjabi.
Twen ty-eight field presen tation s
were made to m ore than 2,000
participants, and a d emon stra-
tion farm tour was organized sogrowers could see the latest BMPs
explained by experts.
A survey cond ucted at th e
conclusion of the project foun d a
significant in crease in th e nu m ber
of growers who base their spray
timing on wind an d weather data
and adjust droplet or nozzle size
on sprayers to reduce pesticide
drift in to n on -target areas. Grow-
ers who follow t h e BMPs are
rewarded with Water Steward
field signs th ey can d isplay alon g
field perimeters. x
Con tact: Dan Wermiel , CALFED
Watershed Program, (916) 445-5398
Reports on CALFED grant-funded
wate rshed p rojects are at http:/ /
calw ater.ca.gov/ Programs/ Watershed /
WatershedGrantsCatalogue.shtml
Parry Klassen, CURES, (559) 325-9855.
Copies of materials produced by CURES
are available at http:/ /ww w.cureswo rks.org/
publications/ag.asp
Erasing Waste Before
It Becom es NonpointSource PollutionBY GARYPITZER
Am on g the man y facets of
nonpoint source pollution,
on e of the h ardest to add ress
h as been p ollution caused by
human behavior. A State WaterResources Con trol Board in itiative
called Erase the Waste aims to
chan ge beh aviors that cont ribute to
nonpoint source runoff, especially
in u rban watersheds. Test-m arketed
in the Los Angeles area, Erase the
Waste is being readied for b roader
distribution in California.
The root of th e m essage is to
convince people th at seemin gly
insignificant contributions of litter
add up to big environm ental and
pub lic health problems in vasturban realms such as Los An geles.
An imal waste, cigarette bu tts,
discarded packaging and the like
com bine with pesticides, oil, soaps
and other materials to clog storm
drains and contaminate the run off
th ey carry to beaches and th e
ocean.
On e of the $5 m illion campaigns
catchy p ublic service advertisemen ts
called Did You Drop Something?
targets dog own ers. There are 33
m illion people in California, m any
of th em dog own ers, it says. Do
th e math . Th en do th is. Pick up
after your po och.
Erase the Waste was created in
2003 specifically to address th e
problem o f what t h e State Water
Board refers to as regional priority
po llutan ts. Tailored t o th e region s
multi-ethnic population, and
fund ed with reven ue from p olluter
fin es deposited in t h e State Water
Boards Cleanup and Abatement
Account, Erase the Waste is the first
coun tywide storm water public
education effort fund ed by th e state
and geared toward curbin g
non point source pollut ion that h as
led to beach closures in areas where
storm sewers discharge run off
contam inated with pet waste,
pesticides, oil and other urban
detritus.
Tom Mays, the State Water
Boards man ager for edu cation an d
public outreach, said those kinds of
CONTINUED ONPAGE 14
Cover page from Neighborhood Action Kit
booklet
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
14/16
pollution reduction effort as a
comp rehensive tool kit th at can be
appl ied to comm un it ies throughout
the s tate and even th e nat ion.
However, the initial Los Angeles
Coun ty road test h as n ot been
without i ts bumps.
B u m p s in t h e R o adState officials said the program was
inten ded to be a tool to help all
comm un ities improve their out-
reach efforts regardin g stormwat er
awareness and was designed to
com plem en t existin g efforts by loca
agencies. But Melinda Barrett,
director of environm ental education
for th e Los An geles Coun ty Depart-
m en t of Public Works, said th e
campaign was a problem becausethe county h as been implem enting
its own com prehen sive program
since 1997. Like most large storm
sewer operators, th e coun ty h as
been required by th e state to im ple-
m ent p ublic education programs as
part of its National Pollutan t Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES)
1 4 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2006
their neighbors, friends and family
on th e stormwater issue, according
to th e State Water Board.
The program also aim ed its focus
at youth education, creating a water
quality learning model for grades
4-6 th at teach es students h owpo lluted run off affects the water-
shed in its entirety. Erase the Waste
fun ds were also used to develop a
permanent watershed exhibit
located at the en trance of th e
Cabrillo Marine Aquarium s educa-
tion al section . Th ou sand s of L.A.-
area sch ool ch ildren visit th is city-
run aquarium th at is located in San
Pedro, and will be educated on th e
impo rtance of stormwater pollution
preven tion th rough ou r in teractive
display, Mays said.Deborah Barnett, a teacher at
Justice Street Elementary School in
West Hills, praised th e education al
comp on ent of Erase th e Waste,
wh ich she said helps studen ts
un derstand the conn ect ion between
stormwater pollutants and down-
stream wat er quality.
Th e state is plann ing to prom ote
th e Erase th e Waste stormw ater
pollutants originate in diffuse
settings but are chan n eled into
disposal end poin ts that h ave been
th e focus of improvemen t for water
qu ality regulators.
Erase th e Waste aimed its m essage
at two grou ps of residen ts deter-mined by survey to be most likely
to ch ange th eir beh aviors. It then
took a m ulti-faceted approach,
using television; radio and print
advertisin g; comm un ity outreach ;
strategic partn ersh ips with busi-
n esses such as ho m e im provemen t
an d pet sup ply retailers; yout h
education an d local even ts such as
graffiti abatem ent an d river clean-
ups to reach th e target groups.
On e of th e prin t produ cts is a
Neighborh ood Action Kit th atincludes a h ow-to guide for local
storm water agencies to enlist
residents as pollution prevention
advocates. Produ ced in five lan -
guages and d istributed th rough a
diverse network of outreach groups,
th e kit is an importan t vehicle that
gives communities the assistance
th ey need to get involved in p ollu-
tion p revention efforts and edu cate
Interactive display shows how polluted
runoff af fects the Los A ngeles watershed
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
15/16
perm it for several
years, she said.
Th is program is
du plicative of
what the coun ty
h as been doin g,
she said, referringto Erase the Waste.
Mays said Erase
the Waste was
coordinated with
the county to
ensure ou r activi-
ties were com plemen tary to th eir
program s. Th e state focused its
efforts on a coun tywide camp aign,
h e noted, while th e coun ty devoted
its resou rces to w orking with cities
and priority un incorporated areas.
The State Water Board pu t LosAn geles Coun tys nam e on Erase th e
Waste materials free of charge,
included th e coun tys hotline on
m any advertisin g and m arketing
m aterials and split outreach t o
retailers and businesses. Together,
these complementary efforts saved
th ousand s of dollars and h elped
extend our reach to m any m ore
households and businesses, Mays
said.
A survey condu cted in th e middle
of th e Erase th e Waste cam paignshowed that approximately one-
th ird of Los An geles Coun ty resi-
dent s had chan ged at least on e of
th eir polluting behaviors in th e past
year and about 50 percen t h ad
become m ore active in n eighbor-
h ood clean up efforts as a result of
seeing or h earin g th e m essages.
But Barrett said coun ty residen ts
would be better served by on e
un ified m essage rath er than two
sma ller efforts. Th e Los An geles
m edia market is th e m ost expensive
in th e state, sh e said. With t wo
camp aigns, each resident sees each
m essage a few tim es. If we h ad o n e
campaign, residents would see th e
sam e m essage more often, a m ore
effective way of gettin g th eir atten-
tion.
Erase th e Waste differs from
previous campaigns that h igh -
lighted th e effects of n on point
SPRING 2006 THECALIFORNIA RUNOFFRUNDOWN 1 5
source pollu-
tion, such as
beach closures.
Its approach
relied on
research that
confirmed LosAngeles resi-
dent s are more
willing to
change their
polluting
behaviors when
they un derstand th e health an d
safety risks that pollution poses to
their immediate community.
Weve had a trem en dou s [increase
in] awareness level and commit-
m ent to beh avior chan ge, Mays
said. Of course, as with an yeducation camp aign , it m ust be
sustained.
That follow-throu gh is crucial,
said Meredith McCarth y, coastal
clean up m an ager for Heal the Bay,
as is consistency and coordination
between th e state and local cam -
paigns. Materials developed for
Erase the Waste generally were very
good, she said, but th ey didnt
always connect with target audi-
ences. Th e neighborh ood action kits
contain a great deal of in form ation,but th ey were no t prom oted effec-
tively to th e coun tys man y diverse
communities, she said. Unless you
are standing th ere at a com m un ity
event, n o on es going to call th e
region al water board an d ask for a
comm un ity action guide, she said.
The campaigns effort to promote
stormwater awareness through t h e
watershed display is laudable,
McCarth y said, but th e num ber of
events at which th e display can b e
used is lim ited. Similarly, very
useful materials are available on th e
Erase the Waste website, but m ost
of the comm un ities th at could best
use the materials arent computer
users, she said.
McCarth y said th e breadth of
diversity in Los An geles requires a
specially tailored focus to instill the
importance of environm ental
education in areas where higher
priorities exist. As such, prom oters
of stormwater pollution awareness
need to do th eir hom ework to make
sure they are addressing pertinent
issues. Pet own ersh ip, for examp le,
is likely to h ave larger represent a-
tion in som e areas th an o th ers.Mays agreed about th e n eed for
proper research and h e shared wh at
was con ducted p rior to d evelop-
m ent of the camp aign . Social
marketing and technical research
were conducted to identify target
pollutants an d cam paign m essages.
Exten sive research was do n e with
focus groups to en sure that m es-
sages resonated with target groups,
he said. About 3.75 million people
received Erase the Waste messages,
m ore than 90 percen t of th emth rough television, radio an d
n ewspapers, h e reported. More than
15,000 Neighborhood Action Kits
were distributed, and educational
partnerships were forged with m ore
th an 150 retailers, n on profits and
public agen cies through out Los
An geles Coun ty.
Mays said th e state plans to keep
working with municipalit ies and
sharing resources in order for local
agencies to find th e best
s tormwater campaign th at worksfor them. Our o ngoing ch allenge
for the Water Boards and all cities
grappling with stormwater pollu-
tion will be to sustain th e m essag-
ing to th e general publ ic through a
variety of education and outreach
too ls, h e said. Th is requ ires a
perman ent comm itmen t of t ime
an d resources to reinforce the
m essaging, an d work to chan ge
polluting behaviors. All cities
under stormwater permits are
aware of th is, but m on ey is t ight ,
an d resources are spread th inly.
He add ed, We h ope to assist
cities by sh aring existing cu rricu-
lum, strategies, ads and other
statewide collateral to m eet th is
challenge. These were developed or
gathered through our campaign,
an d we h ope it will benefit cities so
th ey dont h ave to re-invent th e
wheel. x
This requires a
permanent commit-
m ent of time and
resources to rein force
the m essagin g, an d
w ork to change
polluting behaviors.
Tom Mays
-
8/3/2019 Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter
16/16
If you w ould like t o receive this
newslett er electronically, please
send your ema il add ress to:
Share Your Success
Have an interesting story to tell about you r non point
source pollution control or storm water program?
Wh y not sh are your experien ce with oth ers th rough
The Runoff Rundown? On e of the goals ofThe Runoff Rundown is
to b e a forum for sh aring ideas that h ave successfully reduced
n on point source or urban run off. These can b e programs or
policies initiated by cities, local an d region al agencies, regional
water board s, or in th e private sector. To sh are your story, con tact
Sue McClurg, Water Edu cation Foun dation , at (916) 444-6240,
or send e-m ail to sm cclurg@watereducat ion.org.
717 K Street, Suite 3 17
Sacramen to, CA 95814
Phon e: (916) 444-6240
Fax: (916) 44 8-7699
www.watereducation.org
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED
Non-Profit O rganization
U.S. Postage
PAIDSacramento, CA
Permit No. 430