Thursday, November 16, 2006 – 1:30 p.m. · November 16, 2006 Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s...

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

NOTE SPECIAL DATE!!!

Thursday, November 16, 2006 – 1:30 p.m. 255 Glacier Drive, Conference Room “A”

Martinez, California

City of Antioch : Phil Hoffmeister / Julie Haas-Wajdowicz City of Brentwood : Jeff Cowling / David Stoops City of Clayton : Laura Hoffmeister / Jeremy Graves City of Concord : Jeff Roubal / Qamar Khan / Bruce Good Town of Danville : Christine McCann / Michael Stella City of El Cerrito : Bruce King / Melanie Mintz City of Hercules : Erwin Blancaflor / Jose Pacheco City of Lafayette : Donna Feehan / Ron Lefler City of Martinez : Tim Tucker Town of Moraga : Jill Mercurio / Frank Kennedy City of Oakley : Frank Kennedy / Jason Vogan City of Orinda : Cathy Terentieff / Janice Carey City of Pinole : Nancy Voisey / Tim Harless City of Pittsburg : Chris Barton / Laura Wright City of Pleasant Hill : Rod Wui / Steve Wallace City of Richmond : Mary Phelps / Steve Friday City of San Pablo : Karineh Samkian (Vice-Chairperson) /

Angela El-Telbany City of San Ramon : Steven Spedowfski / Maria Robinson City of Walnut Creek : Diana Walker / Scott Wikstrom Contra Costa County : Rich Lierly / Ronnie Levin Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

: Greg Connaughton (Chairperson) / Mitch Avalon

PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR NOW!!!

Next Management Committee Meeting Wednesday, December 20, 2006 – 1:30 p.m.

Conference Room “A” 255 Glacier Drive,

Martinez, California

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

Management Committee Meeting Agenda November 16, 2006

AGENDA

Public Comments: Any member of the general public may address the Management Committee on a subject within their jurisdiction and not listed on the agenda. Remarks should not exceed three (3) minutes. Presentations: A. Ballot Survey Results by SCI Consulting Group (John Bliss)

30 min.

B. Draft Pool and Spa Brochure (Jamison Crosby)

20 min.

C. Flood Control Manager Status Report (Mitch Avalon) 20 min. Consent Calendar:

05 min.

(All matters listed under the CONSENT CALENDAR are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Management Committee or a member of the public prior to the time the Management Committee votes on the motion to adopt.) A. October 25, 2006 Public Education & Industrial Outreach (PEIO) Committee

Meeting Minutes (Astone – Program Consultant/Donald P. Freitas)

B. October 23 & November 9, 2006 C.3 Implementation Work Group Meeting Summaries (Dan Cloak – Program Consultant/Tom Dalziel)

C. October 18, 2006 Management Committee Meeting Minutes (Michelle McCauley/Donald P. Freitas)

D. October 25, 2006 Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes (Jamison Crosby)

E. November 7, 2006 Administrative Committee Minutes (Michelle McCauley/ Donald P. Freitas)

Actions:

A. APPROVE Draft Pool and Spa Brochure Language and Format (Jamison Crosby)

05 min.

B. APPROVE Public Education & Industrial Outreach’s (PEIO’s) Recommendation to Modify the Program Logo (Donald P. Freitas)

10 min.

2

Staff Reports: A. C.3 Implementation and Compliance Update (Tom Dalziel)

15 min.

B. Municipal Regional Permit (Donald P. Freitas)

15 min.

C. Update on Street Sweeping Project (Elisa Wilfong)

10 min.

D. Status Report on Municipal Visits (Tom Dalziel) 20 min. Regional Board Staff Comments/Reports:

10 min.

A. San Francisco Bay RWQCB – Matt Graul

B. Central Valley RWQCB – Christine Sotelo

Information Items:

05 min.

None. Old/New Business:

Adjournment: 165 min. ( 4:15 p.m. target adjournment time)

3

UPCOMING EVENTS and/or DEADLINES:

3rd Annual Regional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Conference, McEnery Convention Center, San Jose, CA. For more info, visit the conference website at: http://ipm.sccgov.org/conference_2006/

November 14, 2006

November 15 & 20, 2006

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) will be conducting two (2) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Public Workshops on November 15th and 20th from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Water Board offices – 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, 2nd Floor Conference Rooms 1, 2, 3 & 4.

November 16, 2006 Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s Annual Commercial/Industrial Stormwater Inspection Workshop, Centre Concord, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Contact Elisa Wilfong at (925) 313-2164 or email: [email protected] for details.

PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETINGS:

November 22, 2006 New Development & Construction Controls Committee Meeting, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

November 28, 2006 Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

November 29, 2006 Public Education & Industrial Outreach Committee Meeting, 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

December 5, 2006 Administrative Committee Meeting, 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

December 14, 2006 C.3 Implementation Work Group, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 600 Main Street (downtown Martinez), Shasta Room

December 14, 2006 Green Business Meeting, 10:00 a.m. – Noon, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

December 20, 2006 Management Committee Meeting, 1:30 – 5:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

December 26, 2006 Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

December 27, 2006 New Development & Construction Controls Committee Meeting, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

January 5, 2007 Administrative Committee Meeting, 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

January 11, 2007 C.3 Implementation Work Group, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 600 Main Street (downtown Martinez), Shasta Room

January 20, 2007 Management Committee Meeting, 1:30 – 5:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

January 26, 2007 Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

January 27, 2007 Public Education & Industrial Outreach Committee Meeting, 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

January 27, 2007 New Development & Construction Controls Committee Meeting, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

DPF/TD:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Agenda\06 07\DRAFT MC Agenda Nov 06.doc

4

http://ipm.sccgov.org/conference_2006/

mailto:[email protected]

Date: November 16, 2006

To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Presentation Item A – Ballot Survey Results by SCI Consulting Group (John

Bliss) Recommendation: Receive mail ballot survey results and recommendations from SCI Consulting Group regarding the possibility of having a Proposition 218 Election in May 2007. Background: The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program) shall receive a reissued Joint Municipal NPDES Permit (NPDES) either individually or collectively issued by the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards). For the past several years, the San Francisco Bay Regional Board and the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) have been attempting to produce a Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) which would involve all of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies. Either Permit would require increased activities thereby necessitating additional revenue. Many attempts have been made by the California Legislature to increase revenue for stormwater programs, but nothing has come to fruition. Last year, the Program staff suggested, and the Management Committee agreed, to consider the possibility of conducting a Proposition 218 Election to increase revenues for co-permittees. This has manifested itself by having a telephone and mail survey done by SCI Consulting Group (SCI). The telephone survey conducted in late spring was positive; and, the mail ballot was conducted between this September/October. The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Management Committee with the results of the mail ballot survey and to consider future recommendations from SCI. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\06 07\Nov 06\Pres Item A Nov 06.doc


To: Management Committee From: Jamison Crosby, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Presentation Item B – Draft Pool and Spa Brochure Recommendation: Approve brochure language and layout. Background: Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program) staff organized a Pool and Spa Workgroup (Workgroup) comprised of representatives from the both the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards), POTWs and those cities operating their own treatment works within Contra Costa County (County). The Workgroup met three (3) times over the course of the summer and early fall and was charged with two (2) main tasks: 1) refining BMPs for pool and spa owners wishing to drain their pools; and, 2) developing a brochure to be mailed out to all pool owners within the County to inform them of the proper means for discharging their pools. In the past, pools could be discharged to the storm drain but under the proposed Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), discharges to the storm drain will only be allowed when discharge to the sanitary sewer is not possible, and only after ensuring that pools are de-chlorinated. The Workgroup reviewed several examples of similar brochures from other agencies around the Bay Area, the best of which was produced by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). The Workgroup used this as a starting point for development of Contra Costa’s brochure and modified the language of SCVURPPP’s brochure to suit the needs of the County. One issue that arose in the Workgroup was whether or not graphics should be included in the brochure. Some members felt depicting what clean-outs look like and where they can be located on one’s house would encourage pool owners to discharge without contacting their POTW for permission first. Other members felt the graphics were important to educating the public on this issue. A vote was

solicited by Program staff from each Workgroup member as to whether they did or did not want graphics printed in the brochure and the majority voted to include graphics. Subsequent to the Workgroup arriving at their Draft Final version of the brochure language, Program staff submitted the Draft Final language to the Watershed Assessment & Monitoring (WAM) Committee for their comment and approval. WAM members suggested a few small but valuable comments and those were incorporated into the version you have before you. One unresolved issue is how the contact information on the last page should be organized. One option would list only the POTW names, phone numbers and web addresses. It would be up to the pool owner to determine which POTW he/she is serviced by and call them. A second option would list all the POTW names and underneath the cities served by them, along with phone and web addresses. The only potential issue with the second option is that some cities are served by multiple POTWs. So a pool owner in Richmond, for example, wouldn’t know whether to call the City of Richmond or EBMUD for permission. Mock-ups of both options are provided for your consideration. Fiscal Impact: Approximately $17,000. An exact figure will be provided prior to printing. Attachment(s): 1. PDF of brochure showing the two options for consideration. JC:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\06 07\Nov 06\Pres Item B Nov 06.doc

2

Did you know…?• Draining pools, spas and fountains to storm drains

can pollute creeks, the Delta and the Bay with copper, chlorine, sediments and other contaminants. Storm drains flow directly into our creeks, Delta and the Bay without treatment.

• Pools, spas and fountains should only be discharged to the sanitary sewer and only after obtaining permission from your local wastewater treatment authority.

• Copper is a pollutant that threatens aquatic life in our creeks, Delta and the Bay. It is used as an algaecide in pools, spas and fountains and copper pipes commonly used in pool plumbing.

• Wastewater treatment plants remove some, but not all, copper from sewage. It’s essential to reduce or eliminate the use of copper in pools, spas and fountains so that disposal of pool water to the sanitary system is possible.

Maintaining• Prevent algae problems and reduce the

need for draining by: cleaning regularly, maintaining proper chlorine levels and maintaining water filtration and circulation.

• Manage pH and water hardness to minimize copper pipe corrosion that can stain your pool and potentially end up in our creeks, Delta and the Bay.

• Resolve persistent algae problems without copper algaecides. Use chlorine or other copper-free alternatives (e.g. hypochlorite containing shock treatments). Ask your pool maintenance service or pool chemical supplier for help. Or search for environmentally-friendly algaecides on the internet.

Filter Cleaning• Never clean a filter in the street, gutter, or in

or near a storm drain.

• Rinse cartridge filters with water onto a dirt area and spade filter residue into the soil.

• Backwash sand and diatomaceous earth filters onto a dirt area. Dispose of spent filter materials in the trash. Keep backwash discharges out of the street and storm drain.

• If you don’t have a suitable dirt area, contact your local wastewater treatment authority listed in this brochure for instructions on discharging to the sanitary sewer.

Contact your local household hazardous waste facility regarding proper disposal of pool chemicals. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/options/v5951.htm

Storm drains flow directly into our creeks and

the Bay.

A properly maintained pool, spa and fountain will reduce

the need for draining.D R A I N I N G

To sewagetreatment plantTo sewagetreatment plant

Keep pool, spa and fountain water out of

storm drains, creeks and the Bay.

Sewer lineclean-out

Sewer line

Sewer lineclean-out

Sewer line

Stormdrain�ows directlyto localstreamsand bay

mStortS mrSStormdrain

Con

tra

Cos

ta C

lean

Wat

er P

rogr

am25

5 G

laci

er D

rive

Mar

tinez

, CA

945

53

Look for an “S” stamped into the curb or sidewalk near your house. It marks where the sewer line is. Your clean-out may be along it.

Look for a slight linear depression in your yard between your house and the street. This is often an indicator of the location of a sewer line, and your clean-out may be on it.

If your kitchen or bathroom is on an exterior wall, look outside along that wall for the clean-out.

Stand on the sidewalk looking toward your house. Line up the main water sources in your house: bathrooms, kitchens, washers, etc. The clean-out is often located on that line, in front of or behind your house.

Tips for finding your clean-outNot all cities use the same method to mark their sewer systems. If you have trouble locating your clean-out, contact your local wastewater treatment authority. See “Contacts” list at right.

ContactsFor information about draining pools or spas:

Please cut out this reminder and affix it to your pump equipment as a reminder to keep your pool, spa and fountain water out of our creeks and the Bay.

Draining• Contact POTW to properly dispose.

• Don’t drain into a street, gutter or storm drain.

• Discharge water to a sanitary sewer cleanout.

• If you are on a septic system or have no sanitary sewer clean-out, contact your wastewater treatment authority listed in this brochure for guidance.

Look on your prop-erty for a small circular cap on a pipe, with a raised square on it, sticking out of your house or out of the ground. These caps often cover clean-outs.

OR…

Look on your property for a concrete or metal cover marked “SEWER,” “C.O.” or “S.” Clean-outs are often located under them.

In either case, remove the cap and place the hose in the pipe to drain. To prevent backflow, don’t let the end of the hose touch the bottom of the sewer pipe while draining.

What does a sanitary sewer clean-out look like?

There are a number of places to look for your sanitary sewer clean-out. Start by checking to see if there’s an “S” stamped into the concrete of your curb or sidewalk. This marks the location of the sewer line, and your clean-out may be aligned with this marking.

Check on outside walls of the kitchen or baths, or somewhere on your property that is aligned with the drains of your kitchen or baths.

Finally, check to see if there is a slight depression in the ground lead-ing out to the street. It may mark the location of the sewer line, and the clean-out may be along that line.

Produced by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks. 4/04

Keep your pool, spa and fountain water out of storm drains. Discharge water to a

sanitary sewer clean-out.

For more information: www.CCCleanWater.org

#

Sanitary sewer clean-outs are most often found along the sewer line, which is usually aligned with the sewer lines for the house.

Byron Sanitary District 925-634-5560Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 925-229-7288www.centralsan.orgCity of Brentwood 925-516-6060www.ci.brentwood.ca.usCity of Pinole 510-724-8963www.ci.pinole.ca.usCity of Richmond 510-412-2062www.ci.richmond.ca.us/wastewaterCrockett Sanitary Department 510-787-2992www.town.crockett.ca.usDelta Diablo Sanitation District 925-756-1900www.ddsd.orgDublin San Ramon Services District 925-875-2336wwwdsrsd.com/home/home.htmlEBMUD 510-287-1651www.ebmud.com/cleanbayIronhouse Sanitary District 925-625-2279www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.comMtn. View Sanitary District 925-228-5635www.mvsd.orgRodeo Sanitary District 510-799-2970www.rodeosan.orgStege Sanitary District 510-524-4668 www.stegesd.dst.ca.usTown of Discovery Bay Community Services District 925-634-1131 www.townofdiscoverybay.org/West County Wastewater District 510-237-6603 www.wcwd.org/index.htm

Look for an “S” stamped into the curb or sidewalk near your house. It marks where the sewer line is. Your clean-out may be along it.

Look for a slight linear depression in your yard between your house and the street. This is often an indicator of the location of a sewer line, and your clean-out may be on it.

If your kitchen or bathroom is on an exterior wall, look outside along that wall for the clean-out.

Stand on the sidewalk looking toward your house. Line up the main water sources in your house: bathrooms, kitchens, washers, etc. The clean-out is often located on that line, in front of or behind your house.

Tips for finding your clean-outNot all cities use the same method to mark their sewer systems. If you have trouble locating your clean-out, contact your local wastewater treatment authority. See “Contacts” list at right.

ContactsFor information about draining pools or spas:

Please cut out this reminder and affix it to your pump equipment as a reminder to keep your pool, spa and fountain water out of our creeks and the Bay.

Draining• Contact POTW to properly dispose.

• Don’t drain into a street, gutter or storm drain.

• Discharge water to a sanitary sewer cleanout.

• If you are on a septic system or have no sanitary sewer clean-out, contact your wastewater treatment authority listed in this brochure for guidance.

Look on your prop-erty for a small circular cap on a pipe, with a raised square on it, sticking out of your house or out of the ground. These caps often cover clean-outs.

OR…

Look on your property for a concrete or metal cover marked “SEWER,” “C.O.” or “S.” Clean-outs are often located under them.

In either case, remove the cap and place the hose in the pipe to drain. To prevent backflow, don’t let the end of the hose touch the bottom of the sewer pipe while draining.

What does a sanitary sewer clean-out look like?

There are a number of places to look for your sanitary sewer clean-out. Start by checking to see if there’s an “S” stamped into the concrete of your curb or sidewalk. This marks the location of the sewer line, and your clean-out may be aligned with this marking.

Check on outside walls of the kitchen or baths, or somewhere on your property that is aligned with the drains of your kitchen or baths.

Finally, check to see if there is a slight depression in the ground lead-ing out to the street. It may mark the location of the sewer line, and the clean-out may be along that line.

Produced by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks. 4/04

Keep your pool, spa and fountain water out of storm drains. Discharge water to a

sanitary sewer clean-out.

For more information: www.CCCleanWater.org

#

Sanitary sewer clean-outs are most often found along the sewer line, which is usually aligned with the sewer lines for the house.

• ByronByron Sanitary District 925-634-5560

• Alamo• Clayton• Concord

• Danville• Diablo• Lafayette

• Martinez• Moraga• Orinda

• Pacheco• Pleasant Hill• San Ramon

• Walnut Creek

Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 925-229-7288

• BrentwoodCity of Brentwood 925-516-6060

City of Pinole 510-724-8963• Hercules • Pinole

• RichmondCity of Richmond 510-412-2062

• CrockettCrockett Sanitary Department 510-787-2992

• Antioch • Bay Point • PitsburgDelta Diablo Sanitation District 925-756-1900

• San RamonDublin San Ramon Services District 925-875-2336

EBMUD 510-287-1651• El Cerrito • Kensington • RichmondIronhouse Sanitary District 925-625-2279• Bethal Island • Oakley

Mtn. View Sanitary District 925-228-5635• MartinezRodeo Sanitary District 510-799-2970• RodeoTown of Discovery Bay Community Services District 925-634-1131 • Discovery Bay

• El Sobrante • Pinole •Richmond • San PabloWest County Wastewater District 510-799-2970

Toward Healthy, Sustainable Watersheds Prospectus for a Bay Area Stream Goals Project

November 8, 2006

Toward Healthy, Sustainable Watersheds Prospectus for a Bay Area Stream Goals Project

November 8, 2006

Principal Organizers

Jim Fiedler and Ann Draper Santa Clara Valley Water District

[email protected], [email protected]

Trish Mulvey CLEAN South Bay

[email protected]

Mitch Avalon Contra Costa County Flood Control District

[email protected]

Paul Amato, Richard McMurtry (Ret.), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board [email protected], [email protected]

Technical Support San Francisco Estuary Institute

Josh Collins, Mike Connor, Robin Grossinger, Rainer Hoenicke, Lester McKee [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Financial support to develop this prospectus is provided by SFEI and the Coastal Program of the US Fish and Wildlife Service

Contributors and Reviewers Geoff Brosseau, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. Paul Campos, Home Builders Association of Northern California Jessica Hamburger, Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Adam Olivieri, Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates Karineh Samkian, City of San Pablo Cece Sellgren, Contra Costa County Public Works Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association Igor Skaredoff, Friends of Alhambra Creek Luisa Squires, Santa Clara Valley Water District Pam Sturner, San Francisquito Watershed Council A.L. Riley, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

Note to Readers The purpose of this prospectus is to initiate discussion among environmental managers and scientists about the need to improve watershed protection in the Bay Area and how to meet that need. Contributions and commentary are welcome. New reviewers and contributors will be listed in new versions of this prospectus.

Toward Healthy, Sustainable Watersheds: The Stream Goals Project

1

Toward Healthy, Sustainable Watersheds: The Stream Goals Project Summary

Two complementary regional efforts are underway to set long-term ecological goals for healthy watersheds in the Bay Area. The Uplands Goals Project is focused on open space planning to protect and restore the biological diversity of terrestrial ecosystems. The Stream Goals Project is focused on sustaining the beneficial uses of our rivers, streams, springs, and related wetlands. This prospectus pertains to the Stream Goals Project.

The purpose of this prospectus is to support discussions among environmental managers and scientists about the need to improve stream management in the Bay Area. The central tenets are that 1) local communities and agencies would benefit from a scientifically based, long-term, common vision of healthy streams; and 2) state and regional agencies would benefit from a standard process to develop stream health goals and to monitor progress toward achieving those goals.

An approach is outlined for setting regional and local stream goals. The approach calls for annotated maps showing what kinds of stream habitats and riparian areas are most appropriate for different watersheds, for different areas within a watershed, and what natural processes and management actions are needed to restore or maintain these habitats. The approach engages the full range of stakeholders, from local landowners to federal agencies, as well as technical experts from inside and outside the region to advise and review the project from start to finish. The high levels of specificity and collaboration called for in this approach are essential to manage the growing demands for water and land without eroding the economic vitality and quality of life in the Bay Area.

Why do watersheds matter? Everyone lives in a watershed. Our lives are connected to the lives of our neighbors by the workings of our watersheds. What we do to affect the health of our watersheds also affects our neighbors, as what they do affects us. We all have a stake in watershed health.

Our watersheds are increasingly used as natural templates for managing water supplies, flood control, fire control, pollution control, natural resource conservation, and land development. These efforts profoundly affect watershed health. We all have a stake in watershed management.

Why focus on streams? Healthy streams store, process, convey, or otherwise affect the quantity and quality of material outputs from watersheds, including water, sediment, pathogens, contaminants, and nutrients. They have great intrinsic ecological and economic values that are fundamental to watershed health. They irrigate and drain the land, maintain aquifers, provide drinking water, support fish and other wildlife, and provide for recreation. Most of the threatened and endangered plants and animals of the Bay Area are associated with streams and their attending riparian areas and wetlands. The conditions of streams are therefore indicative of the overall status of watershed health.

Will we achieve healthy, sustainable streams through our current activities? If not, what visioning, planning, and management activities are needed? Because streams have great ecological and economic importance, their condition is regulated through numerous laws, codes, statutes, ordinances, and programs. All the planning and management actions are spread out among numerous government agencies operating more or less independently of each other. There is very little coordination among the actions. No one knows what the overall effect of these actions will be. If we did everything we’re supposed to do, carefully


2

followed every rule, implemented all the vetted scientific recommendations, what would our streams look like? At this time, no one can say. What should they look like? It’s time to figure that out.

The necessary laws, technology and institutions for achieving healthy streams already exist. Achieving good stream health is mostly a matter of coordination and collaboration that can only be achieved if all the interests are guided by the same set of ecological goals that explicitly state what the whole of government and society should achieve in the name of stream health.

We need to set stream goals. After the goals are set, the related policies, programs, and projects can be turned into tools to achieve the goals. After the goals are set, the health of a stream will be its condition relative to the goals, and everything we do to achieve the goals will be stream restoration, meaning the restoration of stream health. A goal-oriented, performance-based approach to stream management will make better use of available public resources, reduce duplication and conflict, and could provide efficiencies that achieve better stream health for the same or less money. It will reduce the risk of catastrophic or chronic environmental hazards and help to increase the consistency and certainty of environmental regulation, and thus benefit private landowners and business interests alike. A common vision of healthy streams that is shared by the whole community of watershed managers can be achieved and is needed now.

Who decides what the stream goals should be? And how do we track progress? We need science to say what is possible in terms of the conserve of natural resources and the protection human life and property, and what risks are involved with alternative approaches toward the ideal. Envisioning the future depends on knowing the past and present. It’ll be essential to develop a shared understanding of how existing conditions have come to be, and what have been the roles of nature and people, so we can say what can and should be managed differently. The goals must be scientifically sound.

But stream health is a matter of culture, and culture is more than science. Setting stream goals will require watershed managers, scientists, and residents working together toward a shared understanding of the likely consequences of different actions. The public will ultimately decide what actions are most appropriate. Stream health cannot be achieved without the will of the public.

Tracking progress toward healthy, sustainable watersheds will require regular check-ups of stream health using standardized methods to consistently compare the streams to each other and to their goals. A 3-level framework is outlined for organizing the monitoring efforts according to their geographic scope and rigor. Level 1 features regional and local maps and other inventories of streams and their related habitats. Level 2 is about rapid, cost-effective assessment of ambient stream health to track overall trends within and among watersheds. Level 3 emphasizes careful tests of cause-and-effect relationships between stream conditions and stream management. Level 3 is also needed to calibrate and validate the other levels of work. This will be a big job. Watershed residents will need to help monitor the health of their streams and home watersheds.

How soon can we set stream goals? A regional synthesis of basic information about land use effects on Bay Area streams is essential to understand the range of stream condition that can be sustained, and to predict stream responses to management actions. The overall status and trends in stream condition need to be assessed, and the related public concerns need to be documented. The regional synthesis might take a year, whereas goal setting might take two years per watershed, depending on watershed size and complexity. Goals can be set where stream condition and public interests are already well understood, without waiting for the regional synthesis.


3

Some Guiding Principles and Concerns

Why do watersheds matter? A watershed consists of all the lands that drain to a particular stream, wetland, groundwater aquifer, bayshore, or coastline. All land is naturally organized into watersheds. The larger watersheds of long rivers and streams are neatly divided by their branching tributaries into smaller watersheds. The shapes, sizes and elevations of the watersheds affect rainfall, temperature, and other environmental factors that in turn affect how many and what kinds of animals and plants inhabit the watersheds. The condition and arrangement of watersheds control the distribution and abundance of freshwater upon which all life depends. Engineers and scientists can use watersheds as natural templates for managing water supplies, pollution, flooding, and water-related habitat.

Watersheds are gaining recognition as natural addresses for people. Knowing our home watersheds and where we live in them helps us understand our local relationships to nature. Our watershed addresses tell us where we are in relation to the hydrological cycle (the movement of water as rainfall, runoff, groundwater, surface water, evaporation, and more rain), and in relation to natural resources (springs, creeks, wetlands, and the wildlife they support), and in relation to environmental hazards (flooding, pollution, wildfire, landsliding). Knowing where we are in our home watersheds helps us understand our roles and responsibilities as watershed residents.

Conditions in one small area of a watershed are dependent at least in subtle ways on things transpiring in other small areas of the watershed. No one part is really alone. The water that comes to one place, either off the street, from the air, or from a neighbor’s yard, is bringing unknown types and amounts of chemical material, like nutrients, pesticides, and plant fertilizers. These exchanges take place in the movement of water on the ground and beneath it. There are many other small events that connect one place to another in the watershed. Pollen blows around. Microorganisms move through the air, water, soil. Seeds are dispersed. And larger events also occur. Trees fall. Landslides and floods happen. Our watersheds affect our lives in subtle and profound ways.

Our lives interact with the workings of our watersheds. The ways we garden, the trees we plant along our streets, what we build and how we build it, our use of cars, how we manage pets, almost everything we do inside our watersheds affects them to some extent. These effects might be small or large, helpful or harmful, temporary or long lasting. Our lives affect our watersheds.

Why focus on streams? For the purpose of this prospectus, streams include rivers, springs, creeks, and their associated wetlands and riparian areas. Lakes and reservoirs are also included because streams flow through them. Streams store, process, convey, or otherwise affect the quantity and quality of material outputs of watersheds, including water, sediment, pathogens, contaminants, and nutrients. They have great intrinsic ecological and economic values that are fundamental to watershed health. They help maintain aquifers, prevent flooding, mediate erosion, support fisheries, and provide for recreation. The conditions of streams, their springs, lakes, wetlands, and riparian areas are therefore indicative of the overall status of watershed health.

Because streams have great ecological and economic importance, their condition is regulated through numerous laws, codes, statutes, and ordinances. The governmental regulation of streams is viewed as onerous and burdensome by some affected interests, and necessary for stream protection


4

by other interests. Divisive debates are reenacted from stream to stream. Watershed health declines as the debate about streams continues.

Now is the time to bring science to bear. Enough has been learned about the physics and ecology of streams to achieve a shared understanding of what stream health means in practical terms. Setting shared goals for stream health is an essential step toward sustaining healthy watersheds.

How do we define stream health? The physical form of a stream is the result of interactions among many variables, including discharge (the amount of water moving past a point in the stream), stream width, depth, velocity, slope, channel roughness, bedload size, and bedload volume (bedload is the sediment that is moved by water along the stream bed). The form of a stream as viewed from above, in profile, and in cross-section continuously adjusts as these variables change. The adjustments lead to the most probable stream form, which represents a dynamic equilibrium among the controlling variables. The equilibrium condition is evidenced by a stream that maintains its form while moving the bedload without aggrading or degrading (without a net change in bed height compared to the adjacent valley floor). These variables are ultimately controlled by climate, geology, and land use. For example, landslides can suddenly increase bedload, causing streams to aggrade. Urbanization tends to increase runoff, which can cause streams to incise. Stream stability is one possible aspect of stream health. In addition to constantly adjusting its form in response to changes in water supplies and sediment supplies, a natural stream is subject to large, infrequent floods that remove riparian vegetation, scour the stream bed, and sometimes cause the stream to change its course. Afterward, the stream will tend to re-establish its pre-flood equilibrium form, although its location may have changed. Natural streams are also able to migrate across their valleys at variable rates over long periods. The ability of a stream to accommodate drought and deluge and to use its whole valley for these accommodations is another possible aspect of stream health.

Healthy streams also provide services to ecosystems and society. As noted above, they irrigate and drain the land, maintain aquifers, prevent flooding, support fisheries and other wildlife, and provide for recreation. They are often the aesthetic centerpiece of watersheds. All of these services cannot be maximized in any stream. Some services, such as flood control, cannot be maximized while maintaining all the natural attributes of stream behavior. Similarly, the support of fisheries cannot be maximized without jeopardizing flood control to some degree.

Few of our streams or their watersheds can meet all of our needs. Some that exist in protected wilderness are allowed to behave more naturally, with minimum human intervention. There is more intervention, purposeful or not, everywhere else. Tradeoffs between natural and artificial conditions are unavoidable in watersheds having many people. Management priorities favor intervention in the most crowded watersheds. For most streams, the parameters of health will be combinations of natural attributes and beneficial uses or services that reflect what is appropriate and achievable given natural tendencies and societal needs. Where these are most similar, healthy streams will be more natural. Where nature and the legitimate needs of people tend to be in conflict, healthy streams will be more artificial. The physics and ecology of streams and watersheds cannot be ignored without failing expensively as a society. But stream health is a matter of culture, and culture is more than science. This suggests that the health of a stream can be defined as its physical and ecological condition relative to the goals we set. And everything we do to achieve the goals can be called stream restoration, meaning the restoration of good stream health.


5

What are the problems in our streams? Stream problems vary from watershed to watershed, but pollution, flooding, erosion of stream banks and stream beds, landsliding, biological invasions, and the loss of habitat for anadromous fishes and other native wildlife are common problems throughout the region.

Some of the most difficult problems are due to our failure to apply watershed science to everyday land use. Flooding, wildfire, and landsliding are natural processes that can become problems when homes are built on natural floodplains, unstable hillsides, or in fire-prone areas. Streams that adjoin parks and trails are community amenities, but they tend to be liabilities when squeezed between backyards or croplands. Landscaping can support native wildlife or contribute to the spread of invasive species, depending on the methods and materials used. Streams can become pathways for pollution to reach the Bay unless we control the inputs of pollution from agriculture, commercial landscapes, private yards, and roadways.

Many of our streams are still adjusting to historical changes in land use. A century ago, during the period of peak agriculture, we moved creeks, drained wetlands, lowered water tables with abundant wells, and built dams. In some watersheds, land use has shifted from ranching to intensive farming, and from farming to urbanization. Water has been diverted from some watersheds and added to others to increase their water supplies. Hills have been leveled, wetlands filled, and streams have been buried to accommodate more development. Because of these changes, less of the rain that falls in our watersheds enters the ground. More rain runs off downhill. Streams accommodate this runoff by cutting into their beds and lengthening upstream, causing gullies on hillsides and increasing the risk of landslides. The eroded sediments accumulate behind bridges and culverts and settle into flood control channels, increasing the risk of flooding. Most of the water and sediment that moves through our watersheds carries contaminants that render them unhealthy for wildlife and people.

Some local problems of habitat loss and pollution can be corrected relatively quickly through habitat restoration and remediation. But addressing the larger threats such as chronic stream erosion, excessive flooding, and local extirpation of fish and wildlife might require large-scale adjustments to land use practices that can take decades to achieve without unacceptable economic harm.

Will we achieve healthy, sustainable watersheds through our existing stream management activities? If not, what visioning, planning, and management activities are needed? Watershed health is a growing concern in the Bay Area. There are watershed-based Recovery Plans for endangered species, Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Watershed Management Initiatives, the California Watershed Program, the emerging California State Stream Protection Policy, the emerging Regional Municipal Permit, the federal Mitigation Action Plan, the proposed new watershed section for the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan of the San Francisco Estuary Project, the emerging concept of pollution trading within watersheds, the Bay Area Watershed Program, and the Upland Goals Project. There are multiple individual watershed management plans that, in aggregate, suggest a need for regional information sharing. And there are large-scale tidal marsh restoration projects that in the long-term will rely on local watersheds as sources of sediment to sustain the restored marshes. Planning for housing, transportation, and commerce has not yet adopted the watershed template, but might in the future in order to utilize watershed plans in impact analyses. Meeting Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions for sediment and other pollutants will involve land use changes in some watersheds.


6

While each of these efforts in concept is useful, they remain poorly coordinated. They make almost no reference to each other. There is little acknowledgment of their potential interactions, positive or negative, within and among our watersheds. It’s therefore impossible to know what they will accomplish individually or together. Our conventional approach to watershed planning presumes that the sum total of all the relevant policies, programs, and projects will protect our watersheds. But the persistent, chronic problems of destructive flooding, wildfire, pollution, landsliding, and declining native biological diversity indicate otherwise. We will not achieve healthy, sustainable streams or watersheds through existing management activities.

Watershed planning and management are significantly limited by the following factors:

• Uncoordinated regulatory and management policies and programs; • Inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts at the watershed scale; • Economic pressure to permit activities that adversely affect watershed health; • Concerted opposition to land use regulation by private and commercial land owners; and • Inadequate funding to implement watershed plans.

There are many examples of how these factors hinder our efforts to achieve healthy watersheds. Regulators sometimes demand compliance without providing enough guidance or incentives to meet the demands. Local governments issue permits for upstream land uses that adversely impact downstream management actions. Permitting agencies allow construction of new developments in areas threatened by flooding, landslides, and wildfire. The regulatory process is focused on projects, one project at a time, and practically disregards their cumulative impacts on streams. The relationship between project planning and watershed management is therefore not evident, and funding to implement watershed plans is therefore lacking.

Local watershed stewardship groups can help improve interagency coordination. For example, watershed planning for the Santa Clara Valley, Napa River, San Francisquito Creek, Alameda Creek, Coyote Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Tomales Bay, and multiple watersheds in Contra Costa County have brought together landowners, relevant city and county agencies, and local conservation groups to address priority issues in a collaborative and coordinated way. Developing trust and building good working relationships among diverse stakeholders has led to successful implementation of local projects to restore ecological functions while also meeting other community needs.

While local watershed councils have provided more coordination for local projects, they seldom address the cumulative impacts of multiple projects at the watershed scale. Watershed plans usually focus on best management practices for a selection of land uses without indicating how the uses should be distributed within or among watersheds, what arrangement of habitat types would sustain their beneficial uses, or how projects might be designed to improve their positive interactions in the watershed context. Councils that form around a few pressing issues with localized symptoms rarely have the capacity to address larger, less apparent but chronic concerns, such as rural and agricultural runoff pollution, increased runoff associated with urbanization, excessive sediment input, and other “off-site” problems. The Stream Goals Project would provide this needed perspective.

Political opposition to watershed planning and economic pressure to permit inappropriate land use can best be addressed through further outreach and education of watershed residents and the local land use permitting agencies. The history of land use and its effects on streams can be an important part of the needed education. Stakeholders on all sides of land use issues share the history of the subject landscapes. When they work together to develop this history, stakeholders learn for


7

themselves how the issues have evolved over decades if not centuries. Assumptions are tested and often replaced with new sets of neutral facts that redefine the issues and form a foundation for more cooperative examination of alternative management options. Using history to explain the present has helped environmental planning move past contentious debate about immediate issues to shared long-range goals for Elkhorn Slough, Humboldt Bay, Great Salt Lake, and the baylands of San Francisco Bay. The Stream Goals Project will similarly rely on the shared understanding of historical changes in the conditions of our streams to envision their future.

Achieving stream goals could take decades. If the political will exists, funding will too. Local, state, and federal programs designed to establish and meet regulatory requirements are the likely main sources of ongoing funding. They will have to be tuned to the goals through regional and local offices. Campaigns to win competitive grants and the favor of private foundations will probably be needed to establish model systems of implementation.

What will the Stream Goals Project achieve? Every successful effort to improve our environment, from creating national parks to replacing culverts, relies on a picture of what should be achieved. This is not a narrative description alone, but a detailed illustration, a blueprint of how much of what is needed where to achieve success. The same clarity of intent is needed for watershed planning. Without a guiding picture of what the whole of government and society should achieve in the name of stream health, our efforts to protect our watersheds will fail. If our watersheds fail, so will our economies. Stream goals will improve our security. More specifically, watershed planning and management could be made more effective and accountable by the following anticipated achievements of the Stream Goals Project:

• More community and interagency consensus about measurable long-range goals; • Alignment of government policies and programs to achieve the goals; • Better understanding of how stream conditions relate to management actions; • Reported progress toward the goals based on cost-effective watershed monitoring.

The Stream Goals Project will have practical products that benefit many watershed organizations and programs. Products that are already funded and in development will help agencies and the public to track net changes in the quantity and quality of streams, and to assess the condition of projects relative to each other, to ambient condition, to reference conditions, to performance standards, and to the stream goals. These products include the following:

• A web-based system to track projects through regulatory permits (www.wetlandtracker.org); • Regional maps of watersheds, storm drains, and streams (www.museumca.org/creeks); • A standardized rapid assessment method with supporting software and data management

that is vetted through state and federal regulatory agencies (www.cramwetlands.org).

Perhaps the largest achievement of the Stream Goals Project will be better government and better governance. More people would be more connected to watershed management through performance-based, coordinated governmental programs to achieve a shared, scientifically sound, practical ideal of healthy, sustainable streams. This would lead to more public involvement in watershed planning and more accountability for watershed management.

Despite the large potential benefits of a Stream Goals Project, there is no assumption that the condition of any particular stream needs to be changed. Some of our streams would already meet the goals we would set for them.


8

Who sets stream goals? The development of stream goals is everyone’s responsibility. There’s no “watershed agency” to lead the effort. When it comes to environmental planning and management, watersheds are the commons that no particular agency has explicit authority to govern. The US EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, State Water Board, Regional Water Board, State Department of Fish and Game, Counties, and Cities have permitting duties that affect stream condition. Stewardship groups and private land owners exercise partial authority through their advocacy for stream protection and land use practices. But there is no single source of guidance for securing the health of our streams and watersheds. All the stakeholders, including the regulatory and management agencies, need to work together to set common stream goals, if for no other reason than to make sure that the goals fairly reflect everyone’s interests.

Collaboration between regulatory agencies and management agencies is especially important. The rationale for stream protection is largely embodied in the loosely inter-related laws, codes, statutes, and ordinances that are applied through regulatory actions. But most of the funding to implement programs that can reduce the need for regulation comes through management agencies that have little or no regulatory authority. The National Park Service, State and local park agencies, State Coastal Conservancy, Open Space Districts, local land trusts, and a variety of private foundations can direct their funding to help society meet regulatory objectives for the beneficial uses of water and related habitats. The needed collaboration between regulatory agencies and management agencies is unlikely to happen unless they work together to set common goals.

Science is the foundation for achieving healthy, sustainable watersheds. Science and engineering are needed to develop stream goals that are appropriate and achievable, and to estimate the associated ecological and economic risks of alternative actions. The goals should be based on systematic observations of ecological, hydrological, and social conditions within our watersheds. They should be quantitative statements of how much of what kinds of habitats are needed where, and how the landscape should be managed to achieve the ideal. They should indicate as exactly as possible what the whole of government should eventually achieve, knowing that new ways to achieve the goals will occur as climate, human operations, and infrastructure change.

Watershed health will benefit from all the technical understanding that can be brought to bear. This includes scientific fact, what can be predicted based upon the facts, and what is suggested by practical experience and professional judgment. Experiential understanding can bridge some information gaps. But there may be large uncertainties about achieving good stream health that cannot be resolved without new research. And many uncertainties will never be completely resolved. The effort to set stream goals must continue while the needed research is being conducted.

We need science to outline alternative approaches to healthy, sustainable streams and watersheds. Science can help explain the risks involved with each alternative approach. But stream health is a matter of culture, and culture is more than science. The concerned public will ultimately decide on stream goals. The right goals cannot be set or achieved without abundant public support.

How will stream goals relate to environmental regulation? The Stream Goals Project is being organized through the regulated community as a way to achieve regulatory objectives for healthy streams through self initiative. Environmental regulations will not go away. But here is an opportunity to turn from piecemeal environmental regulation of uncertain benefit toward performance-based regulation to achieve science-based, stakeholder-driven, shared


9

stream goals. The upshot could be less regulatory strife, more regulatory certainty, and more accountability for regulatory programs.

This new approach poses fundamental questions for each watershed: how much of what kinds of ecological services do we need, and why? What specific environmental outcomes do we want and which of them are feasible to achieve over different time scales? How do we know if we are succeeding? Having answered these questions, then scientists, engineers, landowners, the business community, and the supporting governmental agencies can work together to translate the goals into more detailed, place-based recommendations for local ecological restoration, mitigation, and other management actions. Regulations can be adjusted as tools to achieve the goals. This is one way to stabilize the regulatory climate and thus reduce the environmental risks of doing business, while also reducing the business risks of environmental regulation.

If stream goals get set as planned, they are likely to become part of the regulatory landscape. Permits can be written to assure that projects and land use practices are consistent with the goals. Having goals that reflect differences in natural tendencies and societal needs within and among our watersheds is therefore critically important, as is the ability to revise the goals through a science-based process that accounts for new understanding about the nature of our streams and how their health relates to management actions.

How do we measure progress toward stream goals? The details of what to measure, where, and when can be included in watershed-specific monitoring plans, based on the watershed goals. Since the goals will vary from watershed to watershed, the suite of indicators used to track progress toward the goals will also vary among watersheds. But standard methods of data collection must be developed for each indicator. Unless the data are standardized, management actions can’t be compared to each other or over time. There are many indicators to choose from, and new ones are being developed in local and regional settings all over the world. Time must be dedicated to sorting through these, or to develop new indicators that best fit local and regional needs. Once the appropriate methods have passed scientific and managerial review, they can be adopted by the regulatory agencies as standard practices for tracking the performance of policies, programs, and projects relative to the goals. Linking standardize monitoring methods to environmental permitting is the surest way to get them consistently used.

A monitoring framework has been developed by a broad consortium of coastal watershed scientists and managers for organizing the monitoring efforts. The framework recognizes three levels of monitoring scope and rigor. Level 1 features regional and local maps and other inventories of streams and their related habitats. Level 2 is about rapid, cost-effective assessment of ambient stream health to track overall trends within and among watersheds. Level 3 emphasizes careful tests of cause-and-effect relationships between stream conditions and stream management. Level 3 is also needed to calibrate and validate the other levels of work.

Tracking progress toward stream goals will be a big job. Discerning the effects of management actions from the natural variability in our streams will depend on a great deal of data and their careful interpretation. Progress may not be evident for years. Translating the scientific findings into relevant information to managers and improved public understanding will take working relationships between scientist and educators that have yet to be fully developed. To facilitate this education, watershed residents will need to help monitor the health of their streams and home watersheds.


10


11

Methodology

What is the basic approach? Will stream goals be local or regional? The stream goals will be based on scientific understanding about the relative influences of people and nature on stream conditions within and among watersheds throughout the region. The basic approach is to understand native stream conditions; understand present conditions; compare native and present conditions to understand change; use the understanding of change to predict alternative future conditions; select achievable conditions that best meet the needs of most stakeholders; translate this ideal into a set of quantitative goals; and employ indicators of success to track progress.

A regional synthesis of information about the nature of our streams and how they have responded to land use is essential to understand the range of conditions that might be sustained, how these relate to such basic factors as watershed area, shape, geology, climate, elevation, and vegetation, and what management actions might support a desired change. The regional perspective will reveal the broadest range of future stream conditions that might be adopted for any local watershed.

Adequate information about native stream conditions and their historical change has already been developed for a variety of Bay Area watersheds, including Wildcat Creek in Contra Costa County, and Alameda Creek in Alameda County, Napa River in Napa County, Sonoma Creek and San Antonio Creek in Sonoma County, Novato Creek and Muddy Hollow Creek in Marin County, and Coyote Creek in Santa Clara County. There’s a smattering of historical information about other watersheds that can help us understand their general nature. The regional synthesis will probably focus on the following topics.

• Stream density (the total length of streams in a watershed divided by watershed area);

• Stream connectedness (the degree to which streams are connected to each other);

• Mainstream form (the distribution and abundance of braided and unbraided streams along the major valleys);

• The functions of alluvial fans (the degree to which fans are actively trapping sediment and recharging local groundwater aquifers);

• Flood-prone widths (the extent to which moderately frequent floods inundate valleys);

• Riparian forest width and species composition;

• The distribution and abundance of sediment sources, transport reaches, and storage compartments along the drainage network;

• The distribution and abundance of wetlands that depend on groundwater, alluvial flooding, tidal flooding, or direct precipitation;

• The nature of the tidal-fluvial interface (whether streams are perennially connected to the intertidal zone, seasonally connected, or disconnected).

Goals will be set separately for different streams. They can vary from watershed to watershed, depending on the nature of the streams and the public concerns that need to be resolved. But local goals can also reflect regional priorities. There may be a need to vary the goals among watersheds to assure that adequate levels of some beneficial uses, such as support for anadromous fishes and the assurance of domestic water supplies, are sustained by the region as a whole.


12

What is the local procedure to set stream goals? How will the public participate? Stream goals will be set for individual watersheds according to the following steps. These are explained in the remainder of this prospectus.

1. Engage all the stakeholders to identify their primary concerns about stream health;

2. Document the historical nature of the streams relative to the primary concerns;

3. Document present conditions of the streams relative to the primary concerns ;

4. Compare native and present conditions of the streams to objectively explain how natural processes and people have contributed to the primary concerns;

5. Based on the shared understanding of change in stream condition, engage the public and stakeholders to develop long-term stream goals;

6. Build public support for achieving the stream goals;

7. Align public policies and programs to help achieve the stream goals;

8. Establish baseline measures of stream condition and begin tracking progress toward goals.

Step 1: Engage the Public

Effective public involvement is essential to ensure that watershed residents and other stakeholders help shape the goal setting process and its outcomes. Setting and achieving the right stream goals will require money and human resources that will not be available without the will of the public.

The first step in developing stream goals is therefore to engage the stakeholders in a concerted effort to identify their primary concerns relating to their streams. It is essential that watershed stewardship groups and other associations of watershed residents are included as partners. Such groups can help collect, organize, and interpret data. They can also help with public outreach. And they can help ensure the practicality of stream goals by making sure they reflect local social and ecological realities.

As the residents and stakeholders become better informed about their watersheds, their concerns will evolve. Initial engagement of the public is therefore the first step in a process of information development and exchange between the watershed residents, scientists, and managers. Fundamental information about the nature of the watershed and the causes of stream problems will be developed throughout the process to set stream goals, but public involvement is especially important during Steps 1-4, and Step 6. The first four steps lay the foundation of shared understanding required to establish science-based goals that reflect public concerns. Step 6 is needed to vet the goals with the local watershed citizenry.

Step 2: Understand Native Condition

The purpose of this historical view is not necessarily to identify what to restore, although that can happen, but to understand what local streams would tend to be like and how they would behave in the absence of modern human intervention, and to establish a baseline picture from which historical change can be measured. Watershed residents and other stakeholders are invited to participate in a detailed reconstruction of the distribution and abundance of streams, including springs, wetlands, riparian areas and lakes as they existed during the latter period of indigenous land use, prior to European contact. A team of local and regional watershed scientists, anthropologists, and historians will advise and review efforts to synthesize a picture of native conditions based on as much evidence as possible from historical maps, accounts of explorers and early settlers, oral histories, Traditional


13

Ecological Knowledge, and existing remnants of historical landscapes. This step will build on previous historical landscape reconstructions conducted in the region. The result will be a set of maps in a public GIS and on-line that depict the native watershed.

Step 3: Understand Present Conditions.

Maps will be made of existing streams, springs, wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, and riparian areas, including restoration projects and mitigation projects as permitted through the Sections 401 or 404 of US Clean Water Act, and Section 1600 of the State Water Code. Some of these maps are already being produced as part of the State and National Wetland Inventories. They are needed to assess habitat change since historical times, and to plan new projects in their watershed context. The maps of existing conditions will be publicly available on-line. To the extent possible, future updates of the habitat maps will be facilitated through permitting process. Local agencies and interest groups will help conduct a random survey of the status of streams using the proven Level 2 monitoring tool, the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). The survey will indicate the condition of streams relative to standard reference conditions and historical conditions. It will provide a benchmark for evaluating the cumulative effectiveness of current and future management actions.

One product from the status and trends survey of streams will be a “reference network” of places that together represent a broad range of stream condition. Data gathered from the reference network will be used to calibrate and validate Level 1-3 assessment methods. To make sure that the network includes the full range of conditions, some reference sites might be located outside the watershed of interest.

Step 4: Understand Change

A technical team of local and regional watershed scientists will compare the maps of historical and present-day conditions to characterize how and why streams and related habitats have changed. The analysis will document the relative effects of people and natural processes on existing stream conditions. The results of this analysis are likely to challenge a number of existing assumptions and policies about what can and should be restored. Broad scientific support and local acceptance of the results are essential before subsequent steps can be taken. One product from this step will be a “landscape profile,” a short report that integrates the survey of ambient stream condition with other spatial data.

Models will be developed to elucidate how past and current land uses and management activities have influenced stream condition. These models will also be used to investigate how streams might respond to a few alternative scenarios for changes in climate and land use. The analysis of alternative futures is necessary to know how stream conditions are likely to change with or without more intervention, and to know what aspects of existing and likely future conditions can, or cannot, be managed. For example, models might be used to estimate the cumulative increase in runoff amount, velocity, and duration based on General Plan build-out scenarios using standard development practices and the anticipated benefits of prevention and mitigation measures, such as cluster development, runoff “harvesting” and percolation features, and riparian buffers. Other applications might include estimating the economic impacts of various levels of pollutant loads to receiving waters or flood frequencies under different land use scenarios.


14

Step 5: Set Stream Goals

The goals will be a set of quantitative statements with maps of how much of what kinds of water-related habitats are needed in what parts of the watershed to provide the levels of beneficial uses and ecological services that are achievable and appropriate given the nature of the watershed and the suite of supporting management actions that can be applied. The stream goals are likely to take two forms, as described below.

Detailed Restoration Plans

Some stream reaches will have adequate data about historical conditions, current hydrology and sediment dynamics, plus likely future constraints to support specific recommendations for the most appropriate habitat composition, habitat patch size, and spatial arrangements of habitats in the watershed context. These specifications will be developed by expert teams that can include environmental engineers and scientists form local agencies, special districts, state and federal agencies, academia, science-based institutes, and the private sector. These recommendations would be no more than a few steps removed from a formal request for proposal (RFP) for site-specific engineering and construction plans.

Ecological Restoration Templates Most areas of a watershed will only have sufficient detail about past and present conditions for technical teams to develop conceptual templates for restoration. Each template would indicate the range in habitat type, habitat patch size, habitat patch shape, and the spatial arrangements of habitats most suitable for each of a few characteristic geomorphic settings within the watershed. These settings might include the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the mainstem stream; confluences between the mainstem stream and its major tributaries, prominent alluvial fans impinging on the valley floor, mid-slope confluences between tributaries, zero-order basins, terminal depressions on the valley floor, and the zone of transition between fluvial and tidal environments. Each template would indicate the appropriate range in storm hydrograph, base flow, and wetland hydroperiod. How the template is expected to change over time due to natural processes would also be described. Ecological restoration templates would help identify and prioritize opportunity areas where more detailed restoration designs could be prepared, and to evaluate project designs in terms of their site-suitability, sustainability, interaction with other projects, and overall cumulative impacts. They would also serve to evaluate offsite risks and uncertainties that may need to be reduced before proceeding with final restoration designs and implementation.

Step 6: Build Public Support for the Stream Goals

Public outreach should be ongoing. It can begin during Steps 1-4 to draw knowledge and input from existing watershed stewardship groups and landowners to help understand past conditions, present conditions, historical change, and any emerging tradeoffs between ecological services. The historical perspective can be especially useful in resolving disputes and advancing debates. All parties to any controversy over land use have in common the history of that land. By developing the historical perspective together, people can redefine the issues between them, and more easily move into planning the future. The assessments of change must be advised and reviewed by landowners, cities, counties, and special districts to achieve a shared understanding about how interactions between nature and people control watershed health. Watershed residents might be surveyed to assess their attitudes toward streams and especially there willingness to invest in achieving stream goals.


15

Public involvement is especially important following Step 5, after science-based watershed habitat goals have been drafted. It is therefore re-emphasized as Step 6. A broad campaign to inform the watershed residents about the stream goals is needed to assure support for subsequent actions to achieve the goals.

Step 7: Turn Policies and Programs into Ways to Achieve Stream Goals

The process for setting goals for healthy streams must be closely linked with the planning and regulatory programs of each watershed and the region. Once stream goals are set, then the actions and initiatives such as Master Plans, General Plans, the Basin Plan, TMDL, HCP, NCCP, IRWMP, Federal 401 and 404 permits, State 1600 stream bed alteration permits, and local ordinances can be used to achieve the goals.

Step 8: Track Progress toward Stream Goals

Sustaining healthy watersheds will depend on regular stream check-ups. Information from the field and office will be needed to assess (1) the overall ambient condition of streams relative to their goals; (2) the performance of restoration and mitigation projects relative to the goals; and (3) to develop contingency actions to correct unanticipated problems if necessary. Monitoring and assessment methods must be standardized so that stream conditions can be tracked throughout a watershed over time. The results must be readily available in perpetuity for interpretation and reporting. The following 3-tiered assessment framework and information management system meets these requirements.

Level 1 -Habitat Inventory and Landscape Assessment

Steps 1-3 as described above yield maps of past and present stream conditions which, when combined with analyses of historical habitat change, comprise a Level 1 assessment. Maps of natural wetlands and restoration projects are included as a subset of the habitat inventory so that their contribution to the whole can be assessed. The habitat inventory is conducted as part of the State Wetlands Inventory of the California State Resources Agency and the Riparian Habitat Inventory of the State Riparian Habitat Joint Venture.

The habitat inventory will serve as the “sample frame” of streams and related habitats from which representative cases will be randomly selected for check-ups to create a baseline ambient assessment of stream condition, using field-based methods described below.

Level 2 - Rapid Assessment Rapid assessments use relatively simple and inexpensive methods to assess habitat condition without collecting a lot of quantitative data. They provide a single numerical rating or score for each case, relative to ambient conditions and reference conditions, based on visible indicators. The methods allow different cases of the same kind of habitat to be compared to each other, and for individual cases to be tracked over time. Level 2 assessments of streams and related water-dependent habitats will be conducted using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM).

Level 3 - Intensive Quantitative Assessment These assessment methods are used when Level 2 methods do not provide adequate assurances of stream condition, or when the cause of the condition needs to be investigated. Level 3 methods are always strictly quantitative, meaning that they measure one aspect of


16

condition relative to another. The amount of water flowing past a bridge in a day, the number of species of fish living in the water, the amount of insects the fish eat, and the effect of each acre of riparian habitat on the abundance of fish food are all examples of Level 3 information. It is also needed to calibrate the Level 2 methods. For example, CRAM scores are calibrated against Level 3 wildlife and vegetation data for streams and wetlands.

Most Level 3 work will be intensive studies to fill key data gaps, understand cause-and-effect relationships, and to develop and calibrate new assessment methods. The amount of Level 3 work will vary among watersheds and within any given watershed over time.

There are many ongoing Level 3 efforts in this region and elsewhere that should inform the next generation of stream status and trend assessment. This includes studies of how land use effects the quantity and quality of water and sediment in streams, how stream behavior influences ecological services, and how wildlife respond to different stream restoration designs. All of these studies have the potential to generate new Level 3 indicators of stream condition. The best indicators will provide direct, standardized, and cost-effective assessments of condition relative to the stream goals.

Will there be a Stream Goals report? Will the supporting data be publicly available? The high quality of information used to develop stream goals will be assured through the technical teams that develop the information, its scientific peer review, and data Quality Assurance Project Plans. QAPPs prevent systematic errors in data entry, analysis, and interpretation. They will be developed and publicly available for all Level 1-3 monitoring and assessment methods used to assess the condition of streams and watersheds.

Environmental data management is improving. A new, web-based system of regional data centers is being developed for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program of the State Water Board as part of the California Environmental Data Exchange Network of the State Resources Agency. The efficacy of linking the regional system to the federal Assessment Database is also being explored. The ADB serves as an analytical tool for all States to develop health standards that are specific to streams and related habitats. For the Bay Area, the primary purpose of the emerging regional data management system is to enable everyone interested in watershed management to access local and regional information about watershed health. There will be a Stream Goals report. It will be distributed to the public through the web-based information system used to manage the data and information for the Stream Goals Project.


17

Diagram of an adaptive process with public involvement to set and achieve science-based goals for healthy, sustainable streams

Identify preliminary habitat goals for the

watershed and priority issues and concerns

Document past conditions focusing on public and

stakeholder goals and priorities

Are current management initiatives appropriate to meet goals?

Yes

Identify monitoring strategies and

monitor periodically to assess progress towards goals.

Reassess periodically

No

Document present conditions focusing on public and

stakeholder goals and priorities

Compare past and present conditions to explain how natural processes and past land use and management have caused observed changes and determine main

limiting factors to reaching proposed habitat goals. Identify monitoring strategies for determining future change that are goal-specific

Are the goals feasible and reachable?

Yes

No

Are there new goals that have been discovered? Yes

Based on the causal

understanding of change, revise

habitat goals

Identify or modify public policy and programs so that money can effort can be channeled to achieve goals

Identify tools or projects to achieve goals

Implement tools or projects towards goals and monitor system response

Is progress being made towards goals? Yes Continue

No

Has there been sufficient time to observe change? No

Change tools, implement new projects or change understanding of watershed processes in relation to the goals

Yes

No

PUBLIC

AND

STAKEHOLDER

INPUT

Draft 9/13/06

Beginning to Define a Proposal for Assessing the Historical Ecology of CCC Watersheds Background: At the July Watershed Forum meeting, Robin Grossinger (SF Estuary Institute) gave a presentation about the historical ecology work SFEI has done in Santa Clara County. The study provided information on the historical courses of creeks in the area, locations of former lagunas and wetlands, riparian habitat types, and how these characteristics have changed through time. A range of groups is using this information to design more natural flood control projects, manage urban runoff, restore local fisheries, and identify new opportunities for habitat restoration and preservation. Forum members were excited by the possibility of collecting and synthesizing data describing the historical changes to the landscape in CCC. Sensing this interest, staff met with Robin Grossinger and with the Executive Committee to discuss the possibility of completing this type of study in this region. Staff and the Executive Committee are proposing that developing a historical ecological assessment of the County become a new significant undertaking of the Forum. This initiative is proposed in-lieu of publishing a 2007 version of the Watershed Atlas. Robin Grossinger and SFEI are excited about a potential partnership with the Forum and are interested in exploring this idea further. What would be studied and mapped? Although many features of the historic landscape are of interest, streams, wetlands and other wetted features would be a focus of the study. The completed project would provide information of direct use to resource management including flood protection, integrated water management, restoration planning, and prioritization of land acquisition for conservation. Products of the study could include:

• Map of historical landcover from the early/mid-1800s • Map of historical landcover from the first aerial photos (circa 1940) • Map of historical stream courses from the 1800s (particularly interesting for Marsh and Kellogg

Creek which have been diverted and are restoration targets for the NCCP, as well as understanding changes in urban runoff).

• Map historic riparian conditions (channel cross section and vegetation) • Report analyzing extent and causes of change in ecological/hydrological conditions over time,

including habitat loss/expansion, riparian conversion, channel incision/aggradation, change in watershed drainage density and flood routing, etc.

• Report assessing existing ecological restoration goals developed for the areas being studied in light of new information on historic conditions

• Report identifying restoration and conservation opportunities based on historical information. The process SFEI uses to assess historical ecological conditions: There are five main phases of a historical ecology study: 1) Data Collection and Database Creation– research primary source data. This can come from a variety of sources including Mexican Rancho maps and surveys from the 1840s and 1850s in the Bancroft Library in Berkeley, and aerial photos and other records from historical societies, city/county archives. This step also produces a database tracking historical references. 2) Data Compilation– geo-referencing of historical maps and photographs, compilation of high-value textual data, tabulation of channel geometry change information 3) GIS Synthesis -- interpretation and synthesis of diverse data into GIS layers, using historical maps, early soils data, older aerial photos (from the 1930s/40s), etc 4) Data Analysis – analyze historical landscape patterns, compare historical data with presentation day conditions, look at landuse change, explore reasons for changes.

Rancho San Ramon

Draft 9/13/06

5) Reporting, Technology Transfer, and Presentation-- distribution of final products through a well-illustrated, general audience report, GIS tools, and public presentation. Phasing. Thoroughly assessing and mapping the entire County all at once may not be feasible. Breaking the County into 3 chunks (west, central, and east) and pursuing in phases will be more feasible. However, since the CCWF is a countywide organization, it is preferable to pursue projects with a countywide scope so that an inordinate amount of time at meetings is not taken up discussing a project that only affects a part of the County. We should explore ways to pursue some tasks on a simultaneous, countywide basis, while other tasks are phased and performed region by region. For example, it may be possible to create a countywide mosaic of rancho maps or other source materials while pursuing additional interpretive mapping region by region. If we phase parts of the study, where should we start? Information on historical ecology might have the most immediate benefit in East County (including Willow, Kirker, Marsh, Kellogg and Brushy Creek Watersheds and possibly the Mount Diablo Creek Watershed if we wanted to be more consistent with the inventory area for the ECC HCP). Most new development of previously undeveloped land in the County is occurring or could occur in this area, meaning that opportunities for planning acquisition and restoration are not as constrained as in other areas of the County. Further, significant natural resource planning work is already underway in these watersheds and could benefit from the historical ecological information (numerous Flood Control projects, CNWS reuse, Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed Planning Group, clean water efforts of the cities and the County, East Contra Costa HCP/NCCP, planning work in Marsh Creek by NHI and others and proposed planning work in Kirker and Brushy Creek Watersheds by Flood Control, the Ag Trust and others). Detailed studies of Central and West County could be pursued as subsequent phases. Cost and Funding: A study with a scope similar to that that performed in Santa Clara County would cost about $200,000. The three regions of the County are each about the size of the Santa Clara study area. There might be some benefits of scale. Tentative funding from CDFG has been identified if the project covers East County ($40,000). Timeline: Now: Prep work and fundraising Spring 2007: Start gathering historical data, and create database to track research (Phase 1) Fall 2007: Complete countywide rancho (or other source material) map and prepare for distribution1 Fall 2007: Start data compilation and GIS synthesis (Phase 2 and Phase 3) Winter 2007: Start data analysis (Phase 4): work with Habitat Conservation Plan, and local resource managers in developing analysis and research questions, identifying key areas to target for conservation, and restoration. Fall 2008: Complete project (for one region) – including GIS data, executive summary pamphlet, and full report (Phase 5) Potential Partners: San Francisco Estuary Institute (lead scientists) Contra Costa Watershed Forum (possible roles for Forum participants include: assisting with research, fundraising, reviewing iterative drafts of maps and other aspects of the publication for 2007 Symposium release, etc) Others? Next Steps: 1) Seek concurrence from Forum on pursuing this idea; 2) Refine proposal; 3) Pursue funding. 1 With the upcoming Symposium in November 2007, providing some sort of historical landcover maps to conference participants (instead of an Atlas or Databook publication) would spark interesting discussion and exploration of watersheds. Historical ecology could also be one of the themes of the Symposium.

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM PEIO MEETING SUMMARY ATTENDEES: Members: Julie Haas-Wajdowicz, City of Antioch

Laura Wright, City of Pittsburg Lynne Scarpa, City of Richmond

Kimberly Nelson, Town of Moraga

Steven Spedowfski, Chair, City of San Ramon Greg Connaughton, Assistant Public Works Director

Absent Members: Ronnie Levin, Contra Costa County

Melanie Mintz, City of El Cerrito Staff: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Michelle McCauley, Program Staff

Consultants: PANAGRAPH: Shelley McKenry, Michael Dunn

MEETING DATE: October 25, 2006

NOTES BY: Shelley McKenry

SUBJECT: PEIO Meeting # 4

Materials provided: Branding Messaging Brief I. Used Motor Oil Grant Update. Matt Bolender presented the final calendar to the

committee and let the committee know that the magnet program was being phased out to a calendar contest. He is scheduling 35 Mr. Funnelhead schools programs this year of which over half have been booked. Additionally, a new TV PSA was presented featuring a skunk and squirrel. Due to some VCR malfunctions, Bolender will bring the PSA back to the November meeting.

II. Teacher Action Grants. The Watershed Project sent the committee the second round of

grants for approval. Julie Haas-Wajdowicz moved and Laura Wright seconded the approval of all grants for this round for a total of $11,601.14.

III. Messaging Workshop Summary Report. Michael Dunn presented the branding

messaging brief to the committee. The messaging in this document came from the workshop held on October 4. This document defined the objective of the branding campaign, the target audience including demographics and psychographics, the current audience perception and campaign elements.

The overall key benefit points are:

- Healthy people - Healthy environment - Healthy economy

The overall theme of the campaign:

1. You and the Contra Costa Clean Water Program: Our solution to water pollution. 2. Do the right thing and help us eliminate stormwater pollution. Clean water = healthy people, healthy environment, healthy economy. Water is life. Rescue it. 3. We know the problems that contribute to stormwater pollution. We know the solutions. Trust us and together we can make our waterways cleaner.

The PEIO Committee asked to make sure the specific messaging includes runoff messages. IV. Clean Water Program Logo. Shelley McKenry presented several versions of the new

square logo to the committee. The Committee would like to see a few more versions at the next meeting. Below are the suggestions.

1. Put more space between “Clean” and “Water” 2. Add a black line around the logo as an option 3. Give the logo more depth like the Palm logo

These versions will be presented at the next PEIO meeting.

V. Bus Sign Creative. McKenry and Dunn presented three signage options to the

committee each with the key themes of healthy people, healthy economy and healthy environment. The images were hands holding water, people by a creek and a stencil. Below are comments of the draft creative.

1. Liked the simplicity of “Water is Life” with the logo and web address 2. Make the copy easier to read that is over the image 3. Make the water in the hands easier to see or have it drip down 4. Look into other “people by the creek” photo options 5. Liked having a stencil image but possibly use a different stencil

Additionally, it was discussed to have multiple signs in each BART station and have them rotated on the buses rather than picking just one favorite sign. If billboards will be placed, the committee likes having only the blue background with the copy as the main element.

VI. Tabloid Article Ideas. McKenry presented different article ideas for the first tabloid.

Overall, the ideas looked fine but the committee is interested in the actual articles. By reviewing the articles, they will have better feedback on the topics. Draft articles will be presented at both November meetings.

VII. Special Campaign Meetings. To meet campaign deadlines, additional meetings were added. Below are the meetings currently scheduled through the campaign.

November 14 10am November 29 9:30am December 13 10am January 10 10am

January 24 9:30am February 28 9:30am March 28 9:30am April 25 9:30am

VIII. Adjournment The next meeting will be held:

November 14, 2006 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

600 Main Street, Martinez

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Management Committee

October 26, 2006 Minutes Attendance: MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister City of Brentwood Jeff Cowling City of Clayton Laura Hoffmeister City of Concord Jeff Roubal Town of Danville Chris McCann City of El Cerrito Bruce King City of Hercules Erwin Blancaflor City of Lafayette Donna Feehan City of Martinez Khalil Yowakim Town of Moraga Jill Mercurio City of Oakley Frank Kennedy City of Orinda Cathy Terentieff City of Pinole Nancy Voisey

Tim Harless

City of Pittsburg Chris Barton City of Pleasant Hill Rod Wui City of Richmond Mary Phelps City of San Pablo Karineh Samkian City of San Ramon Steve Spedowfski City of Walnut Creek Diana Walker Contra Costa County Rich Lierly Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

Greg Connaughton Mitch Avalon

I. Introductions: Connaughton began the meeting at 1:35 pm. Self-introductions

were made. Connaughton then proceeded to the agenda.

II. Presentations: None.

III. Consent:

A. September 20, 2006 Management Committee Meeting Minutes

Frank Kennedy moved/Phil Hoffmeister seconded/To Approve the Consent Item as

submitted. Passed unanimously.

IV. Action:

A. APPROVE Adoption of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s Stormwater

C.3 Guidebook, 3rd Edition – Tom Dalziel explained the draft C.3 Guidebook, 3rd Edition is complete. Dalziel indicated the major change to the Guidebook is the inclusion of the HMP approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) in July 2006. Dalziel quickly reviewed a few minor changes made as a condition of approval by the Regional Board and asked if co-permittees had any questions. Dalziel confirmed the new ratio for self-containment is one (1) part impervious to one (1) part pervious surface. Frank Kennedy moved/Karineh Samkian seconded/To approve the adoption of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 3rd Edition. Passed unanimously.

B. CONSIDER Canceling the November 15, 2006 Management Committee Meeting – Donald P. Freitas explained the Regional Board recently notified staff the next scheduled Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) stakeholder meeting is November 15, 2006, the same day as the November Management Committee meeting. Freitas indicated although he continues to be disillusioned with the process, he believes it is important staff and co-permittees attend the MRP meeting. Freitas proposed the Management Committee meeting be canceled, rescheduled to another date or held via teleconference. Co-permittees agreed to reschedule the Management Committee meeting to Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 1:30 pm. Freitas discussed two subjects of interest for the November Management Committee meeting, mainly the Proposition 218 Phase II results and follow-up to the November 15th MRP meeting. Freitas informed co-permittees the return rate on the Proposition 218 mailer was very high at 15%, but stated he had no information regarding the results. Freitas expects the preliminary results will be presented to the Administrative Committee on November 1, 2006. Freitas distributed a September 22, 2006 letter from BASMAA accompanying the “Stakeholder Draft MRP” submitted to the Regional Board. Attached to the letter was the response from Regional Board counsel on the MRP submittal concerning perceived “Ex Parte” communications. Freitas indicated the Regional Board reluctantly agreed to post the draft BASMAA MRP on their website as requested. Jeff Roubal distributed copied packets of the draft Regional Board MRP to use for comparison against the draft BASMAA MRP. Roubal and others agreed the documents were very far apart in style and substance.

2

V. Staff Reports:

A. Update on Pool and Spa Brochure – Jamison Crosby stated by end of day on

October 19, 2006 the draft Pool and Spa Brochure language would be complete. Crosby indicated the Watershed and Monitoring Committee (WAM) would be asked to approve it on October 25, 2006. Crosby will provide a brochure mockup of the final product and distribute it electronically with the November Management Committee packet for approval of the language. Crosby estimates the total cost of $17,000 for production and mailing of the brochure to pool and spa owners as well as brochures for the municipalities. Crosby stated she may want to have a second printing a year later to go to the pool and spa companies. Some municipalities expressed a desire to have the cost allocated by pools in each municipality rather than by population. Crosby said she would work the allocation charges both ways and evaluate the differences.

B. Regional Monitoring Program Annual Report – Elisa Wilfong stated she and Jamison Crosby attended the September 12, 2006 Regional Monitoring Program conference. It was a collaborative effort by the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) and the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). Wilfong stated the data obtained from last year’s monitoring was based on a variety of monitoring methods. While DDT, Chlordane and some pesticides are on the decline in local creeks (they were outlawed in the 90s) Pyrethroids and PBDEs continue to rise. Some discussion ensued on the source/abundance of PBDEs in the environment.

C. CASQA 2006 Conference Highlights – Wilfong reminded co-permittees she, Dalziel and Crosby attended the 2006 CASQA Conference which provided a broad spectrum of subjects. Staff attended classes aligned closest to their job description. Dalziel provided some highlights from two keynote speakers, Pamela Creedon, Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Celeste Cantu of the State Water Board.

D. Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Annual Report – Michelle McCauley stated the Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Annual Report was submitted to the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Boards on three (3) CDs on October 3, 2006. McCauley announced the entire report has been posted on the Program’s website under “Members.”

3

VI. Regional Board Staff Comment/Reports:

A. San Francisco Bay RWQCB – Matt Graul thanked Contra Costa County staff for

their prompt response to an illegal dumping report received by the Regional Board.

B. Central Valley RWQCB – Christine Sotelo of the Central Valley RWQCB was not in attendance. However, Dalziel informed co-permittees Sotelo notified Program staff she would like to organize a meeting between her, Pamela Creedon – Executive Officer of the Central Valley RWQCB, Program staff and East County/Region 2 co-permittees. Sotelo indicated the purpose of the meeting was to focus on the current status of those municipalities and evaluate directions for the future.

VII. Information Items: None.

VIII. Old/New Business:

A. Wilfong indicated she sent an email to all municipalities regarding the upcoming

extension of the Inspection Agreement from June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2009. Wilfong informed co-permittees the City of Hercules decided to join the Program’s Inspection Agreement and alerted other interested municipalities of the opportunity to join the agreement.

B Dalziel thanked municipalities for submitting their pre-rainy season inspection forms. Dalziel stated a few late submittals were received and will be submitted to the Regional Board on October 19, 2006.

IX. Adjournment:

Connaughton adjourned the meeting at 3:10 pm. MM/DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Minutes&Attendance\06 07\MC Min Oct 06.doc

4

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee

October 25, 2006 Meeting Minutes

Attendance: MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister City of Concord Jeff Roubal City of Richmond (Vice Chairperson) Lynne Scarpa City of San Pablo (Chairperson) Karineh Samkian City of Orinda Cathy Terentieff City of Pinole Nancy Voisey Contra Costa County Ronnie Levin Non-Voting Members Flood Control District Program Staff: Jamison Crosby Michelle McCauley I. Introductory Remarks and Announcements - Samkian began the meeting at 1:00

pm. Jamison Crosby reminded co-permittees of the MRP meetings being held on November 15th and 20th. Crosby will send WAM Committee members the link to the Regional Board DRAFT MRP. Crosby asked for feedback on the Monitoring provisions of the DRAFT MRP from co-permittees at the November WAM meeting. Crosby also reminded co-permittees of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Conference being held in San Jose on November 14th, 2006 from 8 am to 5 pm.

II. Golf Course Study - Discussion of Potential for Phase III – Crosby solicited input from co-permittees as to whether they wanted to develop a scope of work for a Phase III of the project. Phase III would provide outreach to golf course superintendents as well as managers of any other facilities with large amounts of turf. Co-permittees agreed there was nothing profound to outreach and elected not to fund Phase III at this point.

III. City of Richmond - Draft PCB Data Summary Report by EOA, Inc. – Crosby

distributed the EOA, Inc. DRAFT Summary of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Studies in Richmond, California Urban Drainages. Lynne Scarpa provided an overview of the previous sampling sites and timelines on a map of the Richmond PCB sampling area near Cutting Blvd. Scarpa explained her goal was to determine

if PCBs were a part of the soil in the area or a product of tidal influence. Crosby asked co-permittees for comments on the EOA report by November 10, 2006. Scarpa indicated she intends to take more samples through the 2006/07 Winter.

IV. Pool and Spa Workgroup - Review of Brochure Language – Crosby distributed

copies of the “Draft Final Pool and Spa Brochure” language the Workgroup had developed. Some discussion ensued and co-permittees asked Crosby to ensure the brochure contained a disclaimer to contact the POTW for permission prior to discharge. The brochure does. Co-permittees suggested a few minor changes to the order of the first 4 paragraphs of the brochure under the heading “Did you know?” Crosby will make the suggested changes and submit to WAM via email for their concurrence. She explained she will submit a mock-up of the brochure to the Management Committee for approval at their November 2006 meeting.

V. Program Updates – Crosby reviewed the highlights of the previously distributed

Program Updates. Crosby drew attention to the fact the fact the “Bay Area Stream Goals Project” is the new name for the Watershed Goals Initiative.

VI. Status of Posting Various Reports to Program Website – McCauley reported she

had just completed posting the FY 05/06 Annual Report to the Program website. Co-permittees asked to have the Final Golf Club Study Report and the 2005 Rapid Bioassessment Report posted to the Program’s website by the next WAM meeting.

VII. Summary of Action Items and Agenda Items for Next Meeting:

• McCauley to report on status of final reports posted to the Program website.

VIII. Adjournment - Samkian adjourned the meeting at 2:55 pm.

Next Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee Meeting:

Tuesday, November 28th, 2006 9:00 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Conference Room “B” 255 Glacier Drive

Martinez, CA 94553

G:\NPDES\WAM\Minutes-Attendance\06 07\WAM Min Oct 06.doc MM/DPF:kh

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Administrative Committee

November 7, 2006 Meeting Minutes

Attendance: MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENTCity of Brentwood Jeff Cowling City of Concord Jeff Roubal

Bruce Good

Contra Costa County Ronnie Levin Town of Danville Chris McCann Flood Control District (Chairperson) Greg Connaughton City of Richmond Mary Phelps City of Walnut Creek Diana Walker Non-Voting Members City of Pleasant Hill Rod Wui Program Staff Donald P. Freitas Tom Dalziel Michelle McCauley I. Introductory Remarks: Diana Walker began the meeting at 9:40 a.m. She

announced Rinta Perkins would replace her in the position of Stormwater Program Manager and be the representative to the Management Committee. Walker expects Perkins will begin her reassignment December 1st. Greg Connaughton arrived at approximately 9:45 a.m. and assumed the ownership of the Committee.

II. HMP Implementation and Compliance Activities:

A. October 24 & 26, 2006 Workshops – Tom Dalziel summarized the two workshops as having two (2) to one (1) municipal over private attendees, with only one (1) Landscape Architect. Donald Freitas suggested a future workshop be held for Landscape Architects. Dalziel asked for some ideas from co-permittees to help locate Landscape Architects. Connaughton stated they maintain a list of the vendors they use and some municipalities responded similarly.

Dalziel stated programmers at Brown & Caldwell were not able to deliver a functional sizing program for the workshops which caused some inconvenience and confusion. The sizing program is now very close to completion and is being tested for any problems.

B. HMP – Next Steps - Dalziel will have the manual sizing tools posted to the Program website until the sizing program software can be posted.

Dalziel will ensure the sizing calibrations and sizing for outflow is completed as well.

III. Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Update:

A. November 15 & 20, 2006 Water Board Workshops – Freitas reminded co-

permittees the Regional Board posted their draft MRP to their website. BASMAA is very concerned because after multiple meetings with the Executive Officer, BASMAA’s issues remain unresolved and the process is as confusing as ever. BASMAA discussed MRP issues with Regional Board staff member Tom Mumley who seemed to understand their position. BASMAA reminded Mumley they had already submitted a draft MRP which has been approved by all co-permittees. BASMAA is hopeful, but not optimistic, Mumley will be able to help facilitate the MRP process to move forward.

B. BASMAA’s Position – BASMAA is calling for all co-permittees to attend the November 15th meeting. The November 20th meeting is tentative if more time is needed. Co-permittees initially asked staff to prepare a brief summary that can be used to educate municipal officials of the ongoing process, but Freitas indicated a meeting of the Public Managers’ Association (PMA) would be more appropriate (January 2007).

IV. Municipal Tours by Water Board Staff: Dalziel distributed the Schedule for

Municipal Tours with Matt Graul of the Regional Board, which runs from November 8 through December 12, 2006. Staff recommends municipalities forge a positive relationship with Graul and take advantage of the opportunity to educate Graul to the difficulties their municipality was experiencing. Jeff Cowling stated Brentwood is meeting with representatives of the Central Valley Regional Board in a similar situation.

V. Visioning Exercise:

A. Program – Freitas explained he recently met with Mitch Avalon and Greg Connaughton to establish parameters for the visioning exercise. They

2

agreed it was somewhat difficult and futile to define a vision for the Program until the MRP is settled.

B. Regional – Same as above

VI. Proposed Program Logo Modification: Freitas displayed draft proposals of a new logo developed by Panagraph, Inc. for the branding campaign. Co-permittees favored the same version selected by the PEIO committee.

VII. Proposition 218 Mail Ballot Survey Tentative Results: Freitas distributed copies of the “Mailed Survey Topline Results” and delivered the news the mail ballot results indicate the measure currently falls short of the projected “win” target and will likely not pass. Freitas recommended the Program continue with the branding campaign for the next eighteen (18) months and revisit the issue thereafter.

VIII. Clean Estuary Partnership (CEP) Status Report: Freitas reported the CEP recently extended their existence until December 31, 2006 to finish up ongoing projects. The CEP has $300,000-$400,000 unallocated in their budget. If a strategy can be adopted to restructure the CEP, they may re-emerge as a new or modified agency.

IX. Approve Draft November 16, 2006 Management Committee Agenda: The following changes were made to the draft agenda:

• Add Staff Item C for Elisa Wilfong to review the status of the Street Sweeping Study.

• Add Staff Item D for municipalities to provide feedback from their municipal tours with Matt Graul.

X. Old/New Business: Dalziel announced The Urban Creeks Council is searching

for an Executive Director.

XI. Adjournment: Connaughton adjourned the meeting at 11 am.

Next Administrative Committee Meeting:

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 9:30 a.m. to Noon

Conference Room “B” 255 Glacier Drive

Martinez, CA 94553

G:\GrpData\NPDES\Admin Committee\Minutes&Attend\05 06\AC Minutes Template.doc MM/DPF:kh

3


To: Management Committee From: Jamison Crosby, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item A -- APPROVE Draft Pool and Spa Brochure Language

and Format Recommendation: Approve Draft Pool and Spa Brochure Language and Format. Background: See “Presentation Item B.” Fiscal Impact: See “Presentation Item B.” Attachment(s): See “Presentation Item B.” JC:DPF:kh C:\Documents and Settings\khardema\Desktop\MC Packet\Act Item A Nov 06.doc


To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item B -- APPROVE Public Education & Industrial Outreach’s (PEIO’s)

Recommendation to Modify the Program Logo

Recommendation: Receive the PEIO’s recommendation for modification of the existing Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s logo. Background: The Public Education & Industrial Outreach (PEIO) Committee with the concurrence and approval of the Management Committee decided a “branding campaign” was appropriate to be implemented during this fiscal year. Public opinion surveys and focus groups have indicated the public does not have a clear view of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program). Therefore, it was suggested a “branding campaign” be undertaken. The Management Committee approved a $400,000 spring 2007 branding campaign. This is a multi-media outreach effort to the general public which seeks to establish the Program as an environmental steward. One of the considerations by the Program’s consultant, Astone (formerly, Panagraph, Inc.) was to consider modification of the Program logo. The PEIO Committee has been working with Astone on this matter and will have a special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 14th, 2006 to finalize their proposal for a revised logo. The purpose of this action item on your agenda is to seek approval for a modified Program logo. A presentation will be made to the Management Committee for your consideration. Fiscal Impact: None. Modification of the Program logo is a part of the $400,000 2007 branding campaign. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\06 07\Nov 06\Act Item B Nov 06.doc

Date: November 16, 2006 To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Assistant Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report A – C.3 Implementation and Compliance Update Recommendation: Receive report. Background: Program staff will provide an oral report on the following C.3 topics:

• October 24 and 26, 2006, C.3 Workshops (see attached agendas, attendance rosters, and evaluation summary)

• Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 3rd Edition (to be distributed at the meeting) • HMP Next Steps

Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): The following information will be provided at the meeting: 1. October 24, 2006, C.3 Workshop Agenda and Attendance Roster 2. October 26, 2006, C.3 Workshop Agenda and Attendance Roster 3. October 24 and 26, 2006 Workshop Evaluation Summary TD:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\06 07\Nov 06\Staff Rpt A Nov 06.doc

Date: November 16, 2006 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report B – Municipal Regional Permit Recommendation: To receive input from Program staff and co-permittees. Background: The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) has undertaken two (2) public workshops for November 15 and 20, 2006 regarding the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Program staff has requested co-permittees to attend these meetings. The purpose of this item is to have a discussion regarding the outcome of the November 15, 2006 MRP meeting. This meeting is scheduled to take place at the Regional Board offices in Oakland, commencing at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 3:00 p.m. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\06 07\Nov 06\Staff Rpt B Nov 06.doc

Date: November 16, 2006 To: Management Committee From: Elisa Wilfong, Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report C – Update on Street Sweeping Project Recommendation: Receive report. Background: The street sweeping sampling project, which was approved by the Management Committee in February 2006, completed its sampling of the seven (7) participating municipalities in August 2006. The samples were analyzed and the results were sent to Program staff in October 2006. The purpose of the street sweeping project was to provide pollutant load reduction characterization for all co-permittees to estimate the effectiveness of their street sweeping programs. The project’s focus was to sample street sweeping material for pollutants of concern (POCs). The sampling project focused on the following POCs: PCBs, total mercury, PBDEs, pyrethroid pesticides, grain size, TOC and percent solids, and eleven metals (Al, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ag, Cd, Pb, As, Se). General sampling results include ranges listed as follows: Aluminum: 5,000 to 18,000 mg/kg Arsenic: 1-8.4 mg/kg Cadmium: <3mg/kg Copper: 30-460mg/kg Lead: 14-352mg/kg Manganese: 200-700mg/kg Nickel: 17-115mg/kg Selenium: <1mg/kg Silver: <5.5mg/kg Zinc: 140-1000mg/kg Mercury: <1mg/kg PCBs: 0-898 µg/kg

PBDEs: 6-681 µg/kg Pyrethroids: virtually all samples non-detect. Program staff has begun the analysis of these results and will provide a complete and thorough presentation to the Management Committee at the December 2006 meeting, which will explain all the data results and project analysis of street sweeping material. Program staff has determined all sample results fall below hazardous waste regulations including high-profile constituents such as mercury, PCBs, and lead. For more information on hazardous waste generators and state profiling regulations for waste please refer to the following Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) fact sheet: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/HWM_FS_Generator_Requirements.pdf Disposal recommendations will be included in a more detailed analysis of the sampling results at the December 2006 Management Committee meeting. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. EW:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\06 07\Nov 06\Staff Rpt C Nov 06.doc

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/HWM_FS_Generator_Requirements.pdf

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/HWM_FS_Generator_Requirements.pdf

Date: November 16, 2006 To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Assistant Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report D – Status Report on Municipal Visits Recommendation: Receive report. Background: At the October 18, 2006 Management Committee meeting, Matt Graul, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, requested the Program’s assistance in scheduling a tour to visit each municipality within his jurisdiction. In a subsequent email, Matt provided the following information regarding the visits:

“Ideally, I want to take a tour of every city and the unincorporated county to have a better understanding of the unique issues that each co-permittee faces. I envision these tours starting with a brief overview/orientation with the program manager [Management Committee Representative/Stormwater Coordinator] and then proceeding to field observations of problem areas and "success stories" in each city.”

On October 31, 2006, Program staff emailed a draft schedule to Management Committee members requesting each review and confirm their availability. At the time of this report preparation, nearly all municipalities had confirmed a date and time for their visit with Matt. Program staff and Matt Graul, if in attendance, will provide an update on the status of the schedule and visits at the November 16, 2006 Management Committee meeting. Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachment(s): 1. An updated copy of the tour schedule will be distributed at the meeting. TD:DPF:kh G:\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\06 07\Nov 06\Staff Rpt D Nov 06.doc

Thursday, November 16, 2006 – 1:30 p.m. · November 16, 2006 Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s...

Documents

Transcript of Thursday, November 16, 2006 – 1:30 p.m. · November 16, 2006 Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s...