fall 2008 california runoff rundown newsletter

8/3/2019 Fall 2008 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fall-2008-california-runoff-rundown-newsletter 1/16

cover a large urban area and theeffect of the stormwater flow be-comes significant.

“Think of the landscape as asponge in the natural environment.With urban development, thelandscape is like a Teflon ® cookiesheet. It is that extreme,” said GregGearheart, Senior Water ResourceControl Engineer with the Califor-nia State Water Resources ControlBoard (Water Control Board).

Plus, with no natural filtering,hydromodification sweeps pollut-ants – everything from oil andpesticides to animal feces and trash- downstream. There pollutants

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 5

Fal l 20 08

B Y S USAN L AUER

For most of the 20th Century,conventional wisdom of urbandevelopment was influenced

by the original infrastructure of theoldest cities. The thinking was toget excess water away from develop-ment as quickly as possible toprevent flooding. As urban environ-ments grew, soils and naturalsurfaces that absorbed excess waterand filtered pollutants were builtover with impermeable surfaces,such as buildings, roads, parkinglots and sidewalks.

“Overland flows from streets,rooftops and parking lots … havenowhere to go because the naturalvegetation and soils that could

absorb it have been paved over,”noted a 2006 report by the NaturalResources Defense Council (NRDC)

“Rooftops and Rivers.” “Instead itbecomes a high-speed high-velocityconduit for pollution into rivers,lakes and coastal waters.”

This alteration of natural waterflow characteristics, known ashydromodification, has severeimplications. As a facet of thestormwater runoff problem,hydromodification forces water intowaterways and causes soil erosion,flooding and habitat loss. One inchof rain falling over a paved area oneacre in size produces 27,000 gallonsof water. Compound that figure to

In Th is IssueOutreach to Dairies in Faceof New Regulations ............. 3

Nonpoint Source News ...... 10

Lake Poway: The City ofPoway’s Pollution PreventionSuccess Story .................. 13

Mining’s Toxic LegacyReport Focuses on MercuryContamination .................. 15

Makin g Storm w ater a Resource,Not a Problem

Fal l 20 08



E d i t o r sRita Schmidt SudmanSue McClurg

Wr i t e rSusan Lauer

E d i t o r i a l A s s i s t a n c eRobin Richie

P h o t o sCalifornia Academy of SciencesCity of PowayNorthstar at TahoeS & J Carrera ConstructionSouthern Association of California

GovernmentsUSDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service

D e s i g n a n d L a y o u tCurt Leipold,Graphic Communications

The Water Education Foundation thanksall the sources and experts who reviewedthis newsletter for balance and accuracy.

Water Education Foundation717 K St., Suite 317Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 444-6240Fax (916) 448-7699e-mail: [email protected]

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

P r e s i d e n tWilliam Mills

Ex e c u t i v e D i r e c t o rRita Schmidt Sudman

The California Runoff Rundown is publishedby the Water Education Founda tion. Themission 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 problemsthrough educational programs.

2 THE C ALIFORNIA R UNOFF R UNDOWN F ALL 2008

Stormwater runoff from streets, rooftops andparking lots is an increas ing problemthroughout California as flows from paved

urban surfaces rush into waterways – causing soilerosion, flooding, habitat loss and pollution.The alteration of natural flow characteristics –

hydromodification – is addressed by the federalClean Water Act and a permit program overseenby the State Water Resources Quality ControlBoard and its regional boards. The issue iscomplicated and controversial. Yet new under-standing of hydromodification and, more impor-tantly, emerging technologies mean pollutioninto rivers, lakes and coastal waters should be reduced. These technologiesalso offer improved restoration efforts improved in the future.

This issue of Th e California Runoff Run down looks at the

hydromodification situation and what’s being done to address theproblem, including local case studies.

Other stories in this issue include how dairy producers in the CentralValley are getting outreach assistance to comply with new regulations; areport introducing long-term impacts of mercury contamination frommining operations dating back to the Gold Rush era and the city of Poway’s successful efforts to protect its drinking water supply after the2007 Witch Creek Fire.

Unfortunately, this could be the last issue of Th e California Run off Rundown . The original federal and state grant through the Clean Water Actthat funded our previous three years of publication has expired, and willnot be renewed.

We at the Water Education Foundation remain dedicated to findingnew sources of funding to continue Th e California Runoff Run down as animportant educational tool. Since we developed the first issue in Spring2005, our “snail mail” and email lists had grown to more than 7,000people. Some 93 percent of the readers we surveyed about the publication –readers from agriculture, local government, state and federal agencies, themedia and municipal districts – categorized this publication as either “veryworthwhile” or “worthwhile.” In o r d e r t o co n t i n u e t h i s w o r t h w h i l ep u b l i c a t i o n , w e a re se e k i n g y o u r f i n a n c i a l su p p o r t i n c o n t i n u -i n g t o p u b l i s h T h e Ca l i f o r n i a Ru n o f f R u n d o w n . P l ea s e c o n t a c tm e i f y o u h a v e a n y i d e as f o r p o t en t i a l f u n d i n g .



FALL 2008 T HE C ALIFORNIA R UNOFF R UNDOWN 3

Facing stringent new environ-mental water regulations,Central Valley dairy producers

are getting some extra help in theform of educational outreach intheir efforts to protect the region’swater quality.

The new regulations – known aswaste discharge requirements –require more than 2,000 dairyproducers to produce monthlyphotographs of retention pondlevels and sampling of processwastewater (liquid manure) andsolid manure (including slurry),among other reporting actions. Thegoal is to improve environmentalmanagement practices in order toreduce livestock pollutants that canadversely impact water quality.

Improper collection and storageof manure or its improper applica-tion to land can pollute surfacewater with unhealthy levels of ammonia, organic matter andnutrients. The primary concerns forgroundwater are salts and nitrates.

The Central Valley RegionalQuality Control Water Board (Cen-tral Valley Board) approved theregulations in May 2007, and thefirst monitoring reports were due in

May 2008 while the full regulationsbeing in July 2008. The Board hasthe charge of ensuring the qualityof wastewater and stormwater thatcan be degraded from dairy produc-tion discharges. The more than2,000 dairies – 75 percent of thedairies in the state – have an aver-age of about 700 cows, and mostoperators have taken actions toprevent discharges to surface water.Still, with so many cows, the poten-tial for water degradation is a topconcern in a region already facingwater supply and quality problems.

“Each (milk cow dairy) facilityrepresents a significant source of waste discharge with a potential toaffect the quality of the waters of the state,” noted the General Orderfor the new regulations. “While thisOrder will impose stringent newrequirements, it will still accommo-date important economic activitiesin mostly rural areas of the CentralValley Region, which is consideredto be a benefit to the people of thestate.”

While no set of waste manage-ment practices has proven to beabsolutely protective, the newregulations stress monitoring as the

most direct way to determine if dairy management practices aremost effective.

The new regulations were deliv-ered to dairy producers in a 128-page packet that detailed theirresponsibility, and “for a lot of producers the bar is now at a levelthey did not expect,” said AnneSilva, owner of an 800-cow dairy inthe Tracy area and chair of theCalifornia Dairy Quality Assurance(CDQA) Program advisory board.“There are questions and concerns,and we simply hope it does clean upthe environment.

“When dairy producers got thepacket, they were so overwhelmedthat they were just looking for someeducation on how to get throughthis. Really, they needed someoneto take them by the hand,” sheadded.

That’s when the CDQA steppedup to offer training through apartnership among dairy producers,government agencies and universityspecialists.

The Central Valley Board isallowing producers to implementthe permit in stages over the five-

Outreach to Dairies inFace o f New Regulations

CONTINUED ON PAGE 4



St o rm w a t er

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1


accumulate and threaten aquaticand wildlife, as well as create healthhazards for people.

“Hydromodification is a major

source of impairment for everyriver, stream and creek in the state.We need to focus on creatingsustainable landscapes,” said EricBerntsen, staff environmentalscientist with the State WaterResources Control Board in Aprilduring a stormwater runoff discus-sion at Regional Board trainingworkshop organized by the WaterEducation Foundation.

In order to address ripariandamage and also the urban source

of runoff, regulators target munici-palities and industry to address theproblems through landscape archi-tecture and Best ManagementPractices (BMPs), which aim toremedy a specific problem torecreate predevelopment hydrologyto the greatest extent possible.

T h e R eg u l a t i o n sThe federal Clean Water Act

(CWA) directly addresseshydromodification under theNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES). TheState Water Board and nine Re-gional Water Quality ControlBoards grant and oversee permitsunder Phase I and Phase II of theNPDES.

Begun in the 1990s, Phase Iapplies to municipalities that havestormwater systems that serve apopulation of 100,000 or more andany construction activity thatinvolves more than five acres. PhaseII, begun in 2003, includes smallmunicipalities and constructionsites of one to five acres. It alsopertains to smaller sites less thanone acre, that are part of “a largerdevelopment project.”

“This is a complicated program.Different regions are at differentstages of addressinghydromodification,” Gearheart said.“For example, some municipalities


year life of the permit. “We wererelieved when the board imple-mented the new regulations overa five-year period. It has allowedus to go ahead and do someextraordinary outreach,” saidMichael Payne, CDQA programdirector.

Dairy producers have beenattending standing-room onlyworkshops since late 2007 inCentral Valley counties. Therecent efforts are the most inten-sive outreach programs at-tempted to date, and the partner-ship has been a key to success.

“As my mother would say,‘Many hands make light work.’This is not feeling light, butcertainly with a joint effort weare able to get out there withintensive outreach,” Payne said.

From the dairy producers’perspective, the workshops willmake a difference.

“For many dairymen, theirdays are full enough without theadditional work. Having all thesepeople come together and partici-pate in the outreach to help my

dairy reach the goal of where thebar has been set is impressive. Itgives you hope,” Silva said. •

are on their third permitting cyclewhile others just coming into theprogram.”

There has been a broad learningcurve as the regulators, plannersand permittees have grappled with

creating effective plans. Ever-advancing technology, modeling,costs, coordination and follow-uphave complicated matters and led tolitigation.

Progress is being made, however.In San Diego, for example, “thetools are now in place in cities. Wecan see our path to get there,” said

Jeremy Haas, environmental scien-tist of the Municipal StormwaterProgram at the San Diego RegionalWater Board.

He said the permit program inSan Diego has evolved through theyears with advancements in tech-nology and a broader understandingof the problems created byhydromodification: “All area mu-nicipalities enrolled in Phase I in1990. In large [part], we wereaddressing a legacy program, so westarted vague with the program.We’ve had a difficult time withenforcement, and there has been alack of understanding of the effec-tiveness of BMPs,” Haas said. “Now,we recognize the multifacetedstormwater world. The next step isto focus on quality of effluent andthe effects that effluent has onwatersheds or the Bay.”

The State’s RoleCalifornia breaks its hydromodifi-

cation program into two categories– municipal and construction– andallows overlap for projects that fallinto both groupings.

Under the municipal program,the state and regional boards areworking with 26 permits underNPDES Phase I (addressing stormwater discharges from about 300municipalities) and one statewidegeneral permit that addressesstormwater discharges for 250entities as part of Phase II, accord-ing to Christine Sotelo, environ-mental scientist with the State

Fast Facts➤ The number of milk cows

in California doubled overthe last 30 years to almost1.8 million in 2006, whilethe number of dairiesdropped by nearly half toapproximately 1,970.

➤ Three-quarters of thestate’s dairy cows are inthe San Joaquin Valley,with approximately 68.5percent of the milkproduction from Tulare,Merced, Stanislaus, Kings,and Kern counties.




CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Con trol th e Pollution and Dam ageWater Board. “The goal is the same– to comply with the Clean WaterAct standard,” she said.

To be granted permits, munici-palities must provide a stormwatermanagement plan and implement

BMPs. Many of the municipalitiesare also implementing measures toaddress Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDLs) – calculations of themaximum amount of pollutantsthat a waterbody can receive andstill meet water quality standards -in their areas as part of the Phase Ipermits, which makes matters morecomplicated.

“Often, permittees are given a lotof flexibility to implement theirStormwater Management Plans,”

Sotelo said. “These are complex anda lot of money is being spent – thatis a large issue.”

The complications don’t easewith Phase II permits. Complexity,legal challenges, integration of storm management plans, compli-ance issues and the sheer number of permits is putting a burden on stateand regional boards.

“… 250 permits under Phase II isa lot of work for regional boards.And there are hundreds yet to beidentified,” Sotelo said

For the future, Sotelo noted PhaseI improvements will be how tobetter evaluate compliance – withspecific, clear provisions. Phase IIpermits should become easier,because permits will contain specificgoals.

On the construction side of thestate’s program, extra focus is beingpaid to how to improve perfor-mance measurements. “We arelooking to adopt a risk-based permitapplication on the concept that ‘notall sites are created equal,’” saidBerntsen.

Incentives are high on the list aspart of the efforts. Examples mayinclude training permit applicantsso they can meet the requirementsof their permits to achieve a lower-risk level. Also, fees might bestreamlined for low-risk projects.

Hydromodification is afacet of the overarchingproblem of urban

stormwater runoff, which cantake a serious toll on downstreamwaterways.

To that end, California hascreated a guide of managementmeasures to address what mightbe done to prevent or minimizenonpoint source pollution causedby uncontrolled and untreatedrunoff from non-point sources(NPS).

The State Water Board, Califor-

nia Coastal Commission andother state agencies have identi-fied seven management measuresto address hydromodification.These fall into four categories:channelization and channelmodification; dams, streambankand shoreline erosion, andeducation and outreach.

Scheduled to be implementedby 2013, the NPS Encyclopedia isdesigned to give local officialsand practitioners the flexibility to

choose practices that best delivergiven their own circumstances.

Ch a n n e l i z a t i o n a n d Ch a n -n e l M o d i f ic a t i o n - Manage-ment measures promote theevaluation of channels as a partof the watershed planning anddesign processes. These includewatershed changes from newdevelopment in urban areas,agricultural drainage, or forestclearing. The purpose of theevaluation is to determinewhether resulting NPS changes tosurface water quality or instreamand riparian habitat can beexpected and whether thesechanges will be good or bad.

Existing channelization andchannel modification projects canbe evaluated to determine runoff impacts, as well as benefits associ-ated with the projects. Modifica-

tions to existing site-specificprojects can also be evaluated todetermine possible improvements.

D a m s - These managementmeasures address two problemsassociated with dam construction:the increase in downstreamsediment resulting from construc-tion and operation activities, andchemical spillage from on-pointsource pollution.

An additional measure ad-dresses downstream surface waterquality and instream and riparianhabitat impacts of reservoir

releases.St r e a m b a n k a n d Sh o r e l i n eErosion - A management measureaddresses the stabilization of eroding streambanks and shore-lines that create a polluted runoff problem. Bioengineering methodssuch as marsh creation andvegetative bank stabilization arepreferred. Streambank and shore-line features that have the poten-tial to reduce polluted runoff should be protected from impacts,

including erosion and sedimenta-tion resulting from uses of up-lands or adjacent surface waters.This management measure doesnot imply that all shoreline andstreambank erosion must becontrolled; the measure applies toeroding shorelines and stream-banks that constitute a NPSproblem in surface waters.

Ed u c a t i o n / Ou t r e a c h -Pollution prevention and educa-tion programs for the public andstate agency employees impartinformation and promote projectsthat reduce runoff pollutants,which retain or reestablish natu-ral hydrologic functions (e.g.,channel restoration projects andlow impact developmentprojects), and which prevent andremedy adverse effects of hydromodification activities. •




P u t t i n g t h e B es t P ra c t i c e st o Wo r k

As part of the permitting process,BMPs play a vital role to reduce theeffects of hydromodification andprevent stormwater pollution. Inurban environments, popular BMPsinclude vegetated swales, grassbasins, constructed wetlands onlarger sites and stone-filled trenches.These all can be remarkably effec-tive to capture water and serve asnatural pollutant filters.

Where open space is tight andimpermeable surfaces great, publicagencies and private contractors arefinding that permeable materials,such as porous asphalt and con-crete, allow rainwater to filterthrough the paved surface into theground, which can help rechargeunderground aquifers. The materialscan cost 25 percent more thanconventional concrete, yet there aresavings associated with reducedstormwater management infrastruc-

ture – obtaining land and construct-ing off-site retention – and theecological value of using a non-petroleum-based material.

BMPs provide a shopping list toaddress runoff issues, yet no oneapproach or even a fixed combina-tion of approaches is a panacea. Inother words, BMPs are not “one sizefits all.” Agencies draftingstormwater management plans, forexample, must first account for theamount of runoff being generatedin a specific locale so that proposedmitigation measures are suitable tothe task. Some plans are written toaddress specific concerns, such asthe impact of runoff on nearbystreams or riparian areas.

“Hydromodification efforts arestill in the early stages, and we aretrying out different technologies,”said Jill Bicknell, managing waterresources engineer at EOA, Inc. inSunnyvale, where she assists mu-nicipalities to implement their

stormwater management plansrelated to new development andconstruction activities.

“Various BMPs range from deten-tion basins for storage, undergroundsolutions including tanks and vaults

and storing runoff in soil or gravel –anywhere you can store water andhold it back. We are still learning,yet I am confident we are on theright track,” she said.

For the future, David Beckman,senior attorney with the NRDC, saysthe optimum approach “is not tomanage a particular BMP but setperformance standards and let thecity and developer choose whatworks. That maintains flexibility.You can do what you want to while

meeting the ultimate goals.”

P u t t i n g a LID o n i tIn 2006, the State Water Board

determined that the concept of sustainability should be incorpo-rated as a “core value” in all itsfuture activities and programs as asignificant step to address the state’santicipated population of 50 mil-lion people by 2025. Low ImpactDevelopment (LID) is a relativelynew concept in stormwater manage-ment began in the 1990s and is animportant element of this strategy.

At its core, LID looks to imple-ment methods to infiltrate, filterand store stormwater. Populartechniques include disconnectingroof gutters and paved areas fromtraditional drainage outlets, soexcess runoff doesn’t rush into andoverload the system. Also, naturalareas that may look like landscaped“park” areas are engineered to directrunoff to plants and soil that trapand treat various contaminants.

Other strategies include thepreservation of environmentallysensitive features such as riparianbuffers, wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains, woodlands and highlypermeable soils.

“LID is green infrastructure. It’sno longer a question of if we do itbut how, and how much do weneed to do,” said Ken Schiff, deputy

Paved-over surfaces cause stormwat er to flush into down stream waterways, resulting insoil erosion, increased pollution and flooding.




director of theSouthern CaliforniaCoastal WaterResearch Project, aresearch institutefocusing on the

coastal ecosystemsof Southern Califor-nia, from water-sheds to the ocean.

Other commonLID practicesinclude rooftopgardens, tree planter boxes, and theuse of permeable pavement in lowtraffic areas, parking areas andwalking paths.

“To LID, just say yes. It really canbe the best BMP. It is real source

control. If you don’t create newrunoff, you have less pollutedstormwater to deal with,” said Goeff Brosseau, executive director of theCalifornia Stormwater QualityAssociation.

Last year the San Diego RegionalWater Board approved a stormwaterrunoff permit that will require thePort District and the county’s 18cities to increase the testing andmonitoring of runoff, street sweep-ing and sewer-line cleaning.

Significantly, the renewal permitalso will require the use of two typesof LID. Developers will need toeffectively route runoff from pavedsurfaces and also be required to usepermeable materials for segments of low traffic areas. By 2010, all siteslarger than one acre will be subjectto the requirements. Additionalprovisions require measures thattypically involve the use of largeholding basins that detain theincreased stormwater runoff result-ing from development projects andrelease the runoff in a patternsimilar to the pre-project condition.

Where the county and citiespreviously had discretion to requireLID based on applicability andfeasibility, under the new permit,the San Diego Regional Board willhave discretion to provide its input.

While developers have acceptedLID and are on the forefront of

implementingeffective techno-logical innova-tions, the matterof cost andconcern that

private industryis unfairly bear-ing the bruntremains an issue.Some developersquestion whetherapplying LID

design is a cost-effective endeavor,given the potential higher designand construction costs and theprospect of lengthy project ap-proval.

Mark Grey, director of environ-

mental affairs for the BuildingIndustry Association of SouthernCalifornia, notes the buildingindustry overall is “supportive of LID and green infrastructure. Thebuilding community gets it. Thebattleground – if you will – is howto do that through permits and theCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA). The folks I representdon’t feel discretion should lie withthe state and local boards.”

Grey added that BIA supportsproviding developers with incen-tives to build green and offsethydromodification. “If we want toget developers to integratestormwater with water supply, we

need to look at incentives.”The NRDC’s Beckman agrees thatincentives can lead to effectivemeasures: “LID can transform howwe think – from stormwater aswaste to an economic value. Con-sider the water running off people’slawns as supply. If developers areproducing water efficiency – andnot producing runoff – they shouldget a credit. When combinedtogether, LID can address energycosts, water supply, water quality,

and there’s a wider content of agreement.”

Ty i n g Ef f o r t s t o Fu n d i n gFunding is, of course, a key issue

for hydromodification efforts. Thecosts associated with implementingstormwater management plans,including BMPs and LID, can bedaunting. While solutions are beingsought, the state has made strides toprovide some assistance.

Pervious concrete in parking and walking areas is one way to offset the impact of urban runoff.

“LID can tran sformhow we th ink –from storm w ateras waste to aneconom ic value.”

- David Beckman , Nat ural

Resources Defense Council




Service (NRCS) and the TahoeResource Conservation District.

NRCS furnished materials, technicalsupport and engineering advice,while the teachers developedcurriculum and activities for stu-dents so they would have a hands-on water quality and environmentallesson.

“It’s a complete package - ateaching tool, a public demonstra-tion site, students learning steward-ship and involving their parents.The retrofit works to protect LakeTahoe, helps the school meet

ordinances, and creates an aestheticplay area for the children,” saidNRCS District conservationist JaneSchmidt.

The project entailed creating alarge drainage basin to infiltratewater into the soil. Planter boxeswere engineered to capture roof runoff and move the water under adriveway to the area. Atop the

Practical Lessons at a Lake Tahoe School

What started out as aregulatory obligation

transformed into anincredible learning experience foryoungsters, teachers and thecommunity at the Tahoe LakeElementary School in Tahoe City.

The school’s playground areasnext to buildings were paved tocreate a wall-to-wall asphaltcover, serving as a funnel for largevolumes of polluted water intoLake Tahoe just five blocks away.Lake Tahoe has lost 30 percent of its fabled clarity and color, and

lake protection ordinances nowrequire developed properties inthe Tahoe basin be retrofittedwith measures to protect waterquality. That meant the schoolneeded to make over its imperme-able schoolyard.

The school partnered with theNatural Resources Conservation Students at Tahoe Lake Elem entary School got a h ands-on lesson on how to protect nearby

Lake Tahoe from runoff generated from their school pavement.





CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

basin, parents and students builta garden and wildlife area withaspen, native shrubs and wild-flowers.

“We’re treating the runoff here, 750 cubic feet of water, bycreating a sub-watershed on theschool site. The planter boxeswill catch runoff, provide a placefor native plants, and an outdoorclassroom space,” said Jan Ellis,Sierra Watershed educationpartnership coordinator.

Parent Johanna Monfortenoted the impact the project had

on her fourth grade son. “This isthe most engaged I’ve seen himin learning. He’s digging in thedirt, learning science, seeingcommunity participation, anddeveloping a real sense of pridein himself and what he can do,”she said. “The environmentlesson is good; there is no reasonwhy we can’t solve multipleproblems in an environmentallyresponsible way.” •

AB 739, approved in 2007,established criteria for the StateWater Board and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to awardgrants for stormwater managementprojects. The projects will be fundedby a portion of the proceeds of Proposition 1E flood bonds ($4.1billion) and Proposition 84 ($5.4billion) approved by voters inNovember 2006.

Prop. 84 funds are designated for$1.5 billion for water qualityprojects (mostly through grants tolocal agencies); $928 million forprojects to protect rivers, lakes, andstreams; $800 million in additionalfunding beyond Proposition 1E forflood control projects; $580 millionto fund “sustainable communities”and “climate change reduction;”and $1.5 billion for planning andfeasibility studies concerning watersupply and flood control.

Sh i f t i n g t h e Mi n d s etWhile permits and regulations

have dictated actions, there is an

increased focus on the need toeducate and motivate municipali-ties, industry and the public to thecauses and effects of the devastationdone by unmitigated runoff. Andmost important, how to overcomethe challenges.

“Public education is important.Clearly, the public supports cleanwater. Bureaucrats need to reachout. For example, in Los Angeles,we’ve gone out and explained whyit’s important. The challenge is todo it more comprehensively,” saidXavier Swamikannu, chief of thestormwater permit program for theLos Angeles Regional Water Board.“As a local politician you care mostabout what your community wantsand less interested in regulations.Municipalities have program de-mands – transportation, police, fire– and water quality competes withthat. We have to better define whatthe objective is.”

“The cost of implementation isalso a key factor, he added. “For

X eriscaping techniques reduce runoff an d help conserve wat er in yards an d gardens.



NPS News

FALL 2008 T HE C ALIFORNIA R UNOFF R UNDOWN 1 1

$2.75 Million Settlement withNorthstar Mountain Properties

Northstar Mountain Proper-ties, LLC has agreed to pay$2.75 million as part of its

settlement with the state of Califor-nia stemming from water qualityviolations associated with develop-ment at the Northstar resort com-munity near Truckee during the2006 construction season.

This is the largest settlement everreached by the Lahontan RegionalWater Quality Control Board as aresult of an enforcement actionrelated to stormwater complianceactivities. An environmental projectis currently being developed to offseta portion of this liability amount.

The alleged violations primarilyconcern construction stormwatercontrol at several NMP developmentprojects in eastern Placer County.The proposed settlement includesan administrative civil liabilitypayment of $2.75 million, of which$600,000 in cash would be distrib-

uted between the State Cleanup andAbatement account and the WasteDischarge Permit Fund.

An additional $2.15 millionwould go towards a SupplementalEnvironmental Project (SEP), whichwill include implementing restora-tion efforts and watershed improve-ments on the Waddle Ranch Prop-erty, located in Martis Valley andrecently acquired by the TruckeeDonner Land Trust to establish aconservation easement.

At its July meeting, the WaterBoard directed staff and NorthstarMountain Properties to modify theSEP to include riparian habitatrestoration and forest thinning inthe Northstar community, ratherthan having all of the SEP workoccur on the Waddle Ranch prop-erty. Water Board staff expects tobring a revised SEP and agreementfor the Water Board’s considerationin early 2009. •

system requiring the air to becleaned before re-circulating it backinto the environment, according tothe Hollywood Chamber. The parkwould create a brief tunnel forvehicular traffic while affording a

street-level park for pedestrians,easing some of the strains on thecommunity created by the originalconstruction of the freeway throughthis area of Hollywood.

In addition, by creating a transit-oriented development, accessibleby subway stops and various buslines, the Hollywood Chamberhopes to generate a positive envi-ronmental impact and promote amore active, healthy lifestyle forarea residents, 26% of which are

children. It will take several years,at the earliest, to finish the design– and to identify funding. Cur-rently, several different configura-tions are being studied. For moreinformation or to find out how youcan help, contact Rochelle Silsbeeat (323) 469-8311 or via email [email protected] •

The Hollywood Central Park Freeway project design sets a 44-acre park atop the freeway.



S t o r m w a t e r


1 2 THE C ALIFORNIA R UNOFF R UNDOWN F ALL 2008

Museum ’s Green Roof is aSpo nge for Run off

When it rains, the roof will actlike a sponge, absorbing much of the water that would otherwiserun off. Researchers estimate thatthree to five inches of the roof’ssoil will absorb 75 percent of raindeposits that are one-half inch orless.

The museum’s roof also willreduce pollution from rainwaterthrough the plants’ naturalfiltering processes that breakdown and detoxify pollutants,nitrogen and phosphorous. Aperk of the green roof is thisbeneficial process will increaseover time as plants and rootsystems mature.

When it opens this fall, theroof will feature seven domesand steep hillocks to commemo-rate San Francisco’s undulatingtopography, according to famedarchitect Renzo Piano. Thecollected rainwater will be usedas gray water throughout themuseum, while the roundedhills will draw cool air into thepiazza. •

W hile the first roof gardens in Babylondrew enough acclaim

to be an ancient Seventh Wonderof the World, a modern day greenroof in San Francisco is beingheralded as the most environ-mentally friendly museum in theworld - and one of the mostaccomplished ways to reducestormwater runoff.

The “living roof” atop the newCalifornia Academy of Sciences isexpected to prevent about 2million gallons of rainwater peryear from becoming stormwaterrunoff with the help of 2.5 acresof native species planted on theroof of the museum.

The roof’s base is a concreteslab that resembles a thicksandwich: a sheet of waterproof-ing material, a layer of rigidinsulation, a drainage layer of gravel, an “erosion controlblanket,’’ three inches of soil and,on top, more than 50,000 biode-gradable woven-fiber trayscontaining soil and plants.

example, some cities are steeringaway of beach cleanups becausethey don’t know the cost of cleanup.”

To assist those on the front linesof addressing hydromodification,CASQA offers BMP handbooks fornew development and redevelop-ment, construction, industrial andcommercial and municipal projects.(http://www.cabmphandbooks.com).“There are folks with experience inLID, look to the experts. There arehundreds of demonstration sitesaround the Bay Area. Look to those.Everybody’s rolling up their sleeves,and the more information that isavailable, the better,” Brosseau said.

What’s at stake is the state’s waterfuture: “California is not plumbedto catch rainwater now. If we don’t,

water will be even more preciousthan it already is,” he added.For more information about

stormwater runoff andhydromodification, check out theSate Water Board’s website at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater. •

The green roof atop San Francisco’sCalifornia Academy of Sciences isan environmental innovation.

“Thin k of th e land-scape as a spon ge inthe natural environ-m en t. With urbandevelopm ent, theland scape is like aTeflon ® cookiesheet.”

- Greg Gearheart,

California State Water Re-

sources Control Board




The 3,330 acre-feet reservoirprovides more than 10 percent of the community’s water and isdesignated as the 100 percentsupply in times of emergency, suchas an earthquake.

“The most important issue iswater quality for drinking water forthe community of Poway and alsofor wildlife and fish in the lake. Itwould have been a lake of mud andash and dead wildlife if we hadn’tdone this work,” said Danis Bechter,engineering inspection supervisorand NPDES coordinator for the Cityof Poway.

To date, the city of Poway hasspent $1.14 million for erosion

The embers of a 2007 wildfirewere still hot in San DiegoCounty when a city’s took

quick actions to protect its watersupply. Its effort paid off less than ayear later.

In October 2007, the Witch CreekFire burned more than 7,000 acresin Poway, known as “The City inthe Country” in northeast SanDiego County. The fire destroyednatural habitat around Lake Poway,the water supply reservoir for thecity’s population of 50,500.

Recognizing that runoff of ash,silt and debris from the burnedhillsides had the potential to causegreat damage to the lake, aquatic

life and the water supply, city staff acted quickly to implement erosioncontrol measures.

While the fire was still smolder-ing, the city enacted a strategy toprotect both the city’s water supplyand the environment. The strategycalled for three types of Best Man-agement Practices (BMPs) to preventpollution from entering the lake:gravel bag check dams, hydro-seeding and a turbidity curtain.

“This was no longer the rye grassand straw bale approach,” said DaveGibson of the San Diego RegionalWater Quality Control Board (SanDiego Regional Board). “It was avery effective strategy.”

Lake Pow ay: The City of Pow ay’sPollution Preven tion Success Story



1 4 THE C ALIFORNIA R UNOFF R UNDOWN F ALL 2008

control work. The Federal Emer-gency Management Agency (FEMA)has approved $1.04 million forreimbursement. Of that amount,FEMA will pay 75 percent of thecost, the state Office of Emergency

Services will pay 18.75 percent andthe City is responsible for theremaining 6.25 percent.

Gr a v e l Ba g Ch e c k D a m sCrews installed 50 gravel bag

check dams at various locations tokeep debris, sediment and otherpollutants from entering the lake.More than 100,000 burlap bagswere filled with gravel and used toconstruct the dams. The dams werethen covered with a reinforced silt

fence to hold the bags in placeagainst the force of rushing water,which occurred during rain events.

H y d r o s e e d i n gA bonded fiber matrix was

sprayed across 20 acres of the lowerhillside around the lake. Thismulch-like material contained anadhesive and a seed mix. It helpedhold the soil on the hillside untilnative plants, including those inthe seed mix, could grow suffi-ciently to create a biofilter aroundthe lake.

Turb i d i t y Cu r t a i nThe third step was to install a

turbidity curtain in the lake, as thelast line of defense to ensure waterquality. The curtain is roughly amile long and consists of plasticsheeting held up by a flotationdevice at the top and weighted atthe bottom. The turbidity curtaincreates a wall in the water thatrestricts pollution from enteringinto the main body of the lake.

Resu l t sThese efforts were extremely

effective. Lake visitors can now seesigns of life returning to the hill-sides. Green grasses and colorfulwildflowers cover the slopes, pro-viding stability and filtering rain-

water as it runs toward the lake.The amount of debris caught by thecheck dams during each rain eventcontinues to decrease.

After the first heavy rains, thecheck dams were largely filled withdebris. Whatever debris got past thecheck dams was captured by theturbidity curtain. The turbiditycurtain drew a distinct line aroundthe lake, holding the debris near theshore - the water was notablycleaner on the other side.

Crews have continued to cleardebris and maintain the turbiditycurtain and check dams. The stock-piles of debris that were removedhave been covered with plastic andsurrounded by straw wattles toprotect them from rain and winderosion, until final disposition. Carewas taken during debris removal todisturb as small an area as possible

A t urbidity curtain holds back sediment washed f rom fire-ravaged slopes into the Poway Reservoir after a rainfall.

and much of the work was done byhand.

Once these devices are no longerneeded to protect the lake, they willbe removed, and the area will berestored to its original state.

The Lake Poway Recreation Area,in the hills of Poway amid groves of Eucalyptus and chaparral, is also animportant community recreationarea since 1972.

The reservoir is habitat for severalspecies of fish including trout, bass,catfish, sunfish and bluegill. Andthe recreation area is surroundedby the 400-acre Clyde E. RexrodeWilderness Area.

Trails connect to a 65-mile trailsystem and provide scenic lakeoverlooks and treks through chapar-ral, which is quickly recoveringfrom the Witch Creek Fire. •




The California Gold Rushelicits romanticized images of optimists and adventurous

independence, yet a new report bythe Sierra Fund points to a legacy of long-term impacts to the environ-ment and the health of residents.

The “Mining’s Toxic Legacy”report, released in March 2008, isthe first comprehensive look at thelong-term impacts of the Gold Rushon the environment, human healthand cultural aspects. It presentsenvironmental impacts of historicmining techniques, such as usinghydraulic canons to wash awaysides of mountains and hard rockmines that dug hundreds of miles of tunnels. Mercury used for goldmining and naturally occurringtoxic minerals, arsenic and asbestos,are present in mine tailings thatwere crushed and redistributedthroughout the region and in thewatershed.

The report was two years in themaking with the Sierra Fund work-ing with researchers at CaliforniaState University, Chico, tribalrepresentatives, governmentscientists, conservation leadersand medical professionals.

“All Californians should takenote of The Sierra Fund’s findings.This issue affects the fish we eat, thewater we drink and the air webreathe. And we are only justbeginning to appreciate the magni-tude of the problem,” said Assem-blywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis),who chairs the Assembly Water,Parks, and Wildlife Committee.

Wolk noted while more than adozen state and federal agencies areworking to resolve the existing risksto public safety and the environ-ment inherited from the Gold Rushera, only 5 percent of the state’sabandoned mine sites have beeninventoried at this point.

Based on the report’s findings,the Sierra Fund has called for anassessment of state-owned lands formining toxins, a remediation planand the development of a workinggroup with university and stateagency scientists and other stake-

holders to learn more about health

Minin g’s Tox ic Legacy Report Focuses on Mercury Contamination

impacts and solutions to miningtoxins, as well as reform of currentsuction dredging regulations. •

Findings at a Glance➤ Reservoirs in the Sierra

Nevada foothills that formthe headwaters of California’swater projects are contami-nated with mercury left overfrom gold mining. Scientistsestimate that 13 millionpounds of mercury were leftin the land and water fromhistoric gold mining inCalifornia.

➤ New studies indicate thatsuction dredging for goldmining spreads mercury inthe environment. Regulationsgoverning suction dredgingare dated.



If you w ould like t o receive this

newslett er electronically, please

send your ema il add ress to:

[email protected]

Keep Getting the Word Out

Nonpoint source pollution control and

stormwater is a hot-button issue throughoutthe state, and The California Runoff Rundown

is an important forum to share ideas that have success-fully reduced runoff. Unfortunately, this could be thelast edition as the original federal and state grant hasexpired. If you know of funding sources or have a storyto share, please contact Susan Lauer, Water EducationFoundation, at (916) 444-6240, or send an email [email protected].

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

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

fall 2008 california runoff rundown newsletter

Documents