Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter

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


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


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


4/16


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


5/16


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


6/16


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


7/16

CONTINUEDON NEXTPAGE


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.


8/16

CONTINUED ONPAGE 12


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


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


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


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.


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


12/16

W at e rs h e d Mom e n t s

CONTINUED FROMPAGE 8


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.


13/16


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


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)


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


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


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


16/16

If you w ould like t o receive this

newslett er electronically, please

send your ema il add ress to:

[email protected]

Share Your Success

Have an interesting story to tell about 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

Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter

Documents

Transcript of Spring 2006 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter