Calaveras River 2016 Watershed Sanitary Surveythe Calaveras River watershed upstream of Bellota is...

Calaveras River

2016 Watershed Sanitary Survey

October 12, 2016

Prepared for

Calaveras County Water District

Stockton East Water District

Karen E. Johnson Water Resources Planning

CALAVERAS RIVER

2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY

PREPARED FOR

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT

&

CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

October 2016

Prepared by:

Karen E. Johnson Water Resources Planning

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-1

Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Regulatory Requirement for a Watershed Sanitary Survey ............................................................... 1-1

Stanislaus/Calaveras River Group ................................................................................................................ 1-1

Survey Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Report Organization ........................................................................................................................................... 1-2

Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 1-3

Section 2 Watershed Characteristics and Infrastructure ........................................................................... 2-1

Watershed Study Area and Water Supply System ................................................................................. 2-1

Calaveras River Watershed Sanitary Survey Study Area Description ........................................... 2-4

Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 2-4

Topography ............................................................................................................................................ 2-4

Geology ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-4

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 2-5

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................. 2-5

Urban/Residential/Commercial .................................................................................................... 2-5

Calaveras River Water Supply Systems ...................................................................................................... 2-5

White Pines Lake .................................................................................................................................. 2-6

Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant .......................................................................................... 2-6

New Hogan Dam ................................................................................................................................... 2-6

New Hogan Reservoir ........................................................................................................................ 2-6

Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant ............................................................................................... 2-7

Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant ................................................................................ 2-8

Section 3 Potential Contaminant Sources ........................................................................................................... 3-1

Watershed Counties and Subwatersheds .................................................................................................. 3-1

Water Quality Parameters of Concern ........................................................................................................ 3-3

Microorganisms .................................................................................................................................... 3-3

Disinfection By-Product Precursors ............................................................................................ 3-3

Turbidity .................................................................................................................................................. 3-3

SOCs, VOCs, Herbicides, Pesticides, and Metals ....................................................................... 3-4

Forestry Activities ............................................................................................................................................... 3-4

Concern .................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

Potential Contaminant Sources ...................................................................................................... 3-5

Watershed Management ................................................................................................................... 3-5

Irrigated Agriculture and Pesticides ............................................................................................................ 3-6

Concern .................................................................................................................................................... 3-6

Potential Contaminant Sources ...................................................................................................... 3-7

Irrigated Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 3-7

Pesticides and Herbicides ................................................................................................. 3-8

Watershed Management ................................................................................................................... 3-8

Livestock................................................................................................................................................................ 3-10

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-10

Potential Contaminant Sources .................................................................................................... 3-11

Watershed Management ................................................................................................................. 3-11

Mining ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-12

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-12



Active and Inactive Mines ............................................................................................... 3-13

Methyl Mercury ................................................................................................................... 3-14

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Recreation ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-14

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-14


Calaveras Big Trees State Park ..................................................................................... 3-15

White Pines Lake ................................................................................................................ 3-15

New Hogan Reservoir ....................................................................................................... 3-15

Less Formal Recreation Areas ...................................................................................... 3-16

Unauthorized Uses ............................................................................................................. 3-16


Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................ 3-17

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-17


Landfills .................................................................................................................................. 3-17

Underground Storage Tanks ......................................................................................... 3-17


Urban Runoff and Spills .................................................................................................................................. 3-19

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-19


Stormwater Runoff ............................................................................................................ 3-19

Spills ........................................................................................................................................ 3-20


Stormwater Runoff ............................................................................................................ 3-21

Spills ........................................................................................................................................ 3-22

Wastewater .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-23

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-23


Wastewater Treatment Dischargers – Land Disposal ......................................... 3-26

Sanitary Sewer Overflows .............................................................................................. 3-27

Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems ................................................................... 3-27


Federal and State Laws for Point and Nonpoint Wastewater Discharges .. 3-28

State and Local Regulations for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems . 3-29

Wildfires ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-29

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-29



Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................... 3-32

Concern .................................................................................................................................................. 3-32



Growth and Urbanization ............................................................................................................................... 3-34

Section 4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 4-1

Drinking Water Regulations ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

Surface Water Treatment Requirements ................................................................................... 4-1

Regulations of Disinfection By-Products.................................................................................... 4-3

Revised Total Coliform Rule ............................................................................................................ 4-5

Determining Compliance under the Revised TCR .................................................. 4-8

Level 1 Assessment ............................................................................................................. 4-8

Level 2 Assessment ............................................................................................................. 4-8

Failure to Conduct a Required Assessment ............................................................... 4-9

TABLE OF CONTENTS


RTCR Implementation in California as of April 2016 ............................................ 4-9

Additional Drinking Water Regulations ..................................................................................... 4-9

Future Drinking Water Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-9

Contaminant Candidate List ............................................................................................ 4-9

CCL3 ........................................................................................................................................... 4-9

UCMR ....................................................................................................................................... 4-10

Cyanobacteria ...................................................................................................................... 4-10

Six-Year Review of Regulations .................................................................................... 4-11

Long-Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) ............................... 4-11

Review of Water Quality Data ...................................................................................................................... 4-11

Sheep Ranch WTP .............................................................................................................................. 4-11

Sheep Ranch WTP Raw Water Quality ...................................................................... 4-12

Sheep Ranch WTP Treated Water Quality ............................................................... 4-13

Sheep Ranch Title 22 Monitoring ................................................................................ 4-14

Jenny Lind WTP .................................................................................................................................. 4-14

Jenny Lind WTP Raw Water Quality .......................................................................... 4-14

Jenny Lind WTP Treated Water Quality ................................................................... 4-16

Jenny Lind WTP Title 22 Monitoring ......................................................................... 4-17

Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP .................................................................................................................... 4-17

DJW WTP Raw Water Quality ....................................................................................... 4-18

DJW WTP Finished Water Quality ............................................................................... 4-21

DJW WTP Title 22 .............................................................................................................. 4-21

Section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 5-1

Potential Contaminant Sources ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

Water Quality Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 5-2

Sheep Ranch WTP ................................................................................................................................ 5-2

Jenny Lind WTP .................................................................................................................................... 5-3

DJW WTP ................................................................................................................................................. 5-3

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 5-4

Appendix A Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation ........... A-1

Appendix B Title 22 Monitoring Results (2011 – 2015) ............................................................................. B-1

Appendix C References .................................................................................................................................................. C-1

LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 2-1 Calaveras River Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-2 Water Treatment Plant Intake Locations .......................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2-3 Monthly Storage in New Hogan Reservoir (2011-2015) ............................................................ 2-7

Figure 3-1 Calaveras River Watershed Schematic of Facilities ....................................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-2 WWTP NPDES Surface Water Discharges ....................................................................................... 3-25

Figure 3-3 2015 Butte Fire ........................................................................................................................................... 3-32

Figure 4-1 Flow Chart for Revised Total Coliform Rule ..................................................................................... 4-7

Figure 4-2 Sheep Ranch Total Coliforms (2011-2015) .................................................................................... 4-12

Figure 4-3 Sheep Ranch E. coli (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................ 4-12

Figure 4-4 Sheep Ranch Turbidity (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-13

Figure 4-5 Sheep Ranch pH (2011-2015) .............................................................................................................. 4-13

Figure 4-6 Sheep Ranch TOC (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................... 4-13

Figure 4-7 Sheep Ranch Alkalinity (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-13

Figure 4-8 Sheep Ranch THMs (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................ 4-14

Figure 4-9 Sheep Ranch HAA5 (2011-2015) ........................................................................................................ 4-14

Figure 4-10 Jenny Lind Total Coliforms (2011-2015) ...................................................................................... 4-15

Figure 4-11 Jenny Lind E. coli (2011-2015) .......................................................................................................... 4-15

Figure 4-12 Jenny Lind Turbidity (2011-2015) .................................................................................................. 4-15

Figure 4-13 Jenny Lind pH (2011-2015) ............................................................................................................... 4-15

Figure 4-14 Jenny Lind TOC (2011-2015) ............................................................................................................. 4-16

Figure 4-15 Jenny Lind Alkalinity (2011-2015).................................................................................................. 4-16

Figure 4-16 Jenny Lind THMs (2011-2015) ......................................................................................................... 4-16

Figure 4-17 Jenny Lind HAA5 (2011-2015) ......................................................................................................... 4-16

Figure 4-18 Jenny Lind THM LRAAs (2011-2015) ............................................................................................. 4-17

Figure 4-19 Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs (2011-2015) ........................................................................................... 4-17

Figure 4-20 DJW WTP Weekly Total Coliforms (2011-2015) ....................................................................... 4-18

Figure 4-21 DJW WTP Weekly E. coli (2011-2015) ........................................................................................... 4-18

Figure 4-22 DJW WTP Daily Turbidity (2011-2015) ........................................................................................ 4-19

Figure 4-23 DJW WTP Daily Hardness (2011-2015) ........................................................................................ 4-19

Figure 4-24 DJW WTP Daily Temperature (2011-2015) ................................................................................ 4-20

Figure 4-25 DJW WTP Daily Color (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-20

Figure 4-26 DJW WTP Monthly TOC (2011-2015) ............................................................................................ 4-20

Figure 4-27 DJW WTP Monthly Alkalinity (2011-2015) ................................................................................. 4-20

Figure 4-28 DJW WTP Quarterly THMs (2011-2015) ...................................................................................... 4-21

Figure 4-29 DJW WTP Quarterly HAA5 (2011-2015) ...................................................................................... 4-21

Figure 4-30 DJW WTP THM LRAA (2011-2015) ................................................................................................ 4-21

Figure 4-31 DJW WTP HAA5 LRAA (2011-2015) ............................................................................................... 4-21

LIST OF TABLES


Table 3-1 Relationship Between Contaminant Sources and Water Quality Concerns .......................... 3-4

Table 3-2 Crop Production Acreage - Calaveras County .................................................................................... 3-7

Table 3-3 Pesticide Quantities ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8

Table 3-4 Top Five Pesticides Used – 2014 ............................................................................................................. 3-9

Table 3-5 Cattle in Calaveras County ....................................................................................................................... 3-11

Table 3-6 Active Mines – Calaveras River Watershed ...................................................................................... 3-13

Table 3-7 Leaking Underground Storage Sites .................................................................................................... 3-18

Table 3-8 NPDES Stormwater Permittees with Enforcement Actions or Violations ........................... 3-20

Table 3-9 Hazardous Material Spills within the Calaveras River Watershed ......................................... 3-21

Table 3-10 Surface Water WWTP Dischargers in Calaveras River Watershed ...................................... 3-23

Table 3-11 Land Disposal Dischargers in the Calaveras River Watershed .............................................. 3-26

Table 3-12 Sanitary System Overflows in Collection Systems (2011 to 2015)...................................... 3-27

Table 3-13 Fires in Calaveras River Watershed (2011 to 2015) ................................................................. 3-31

Table 3-14 Population of Calaveras County .......................................................................................................... 3-34

Table 4-1 Coliform Triggers for Increased Giardia and Virus Reduction ................................................... 4-1

Table 4-2 LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring Schedule............................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-3 LT2ESWTR Bin Classification ................................................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-4 Step 1 TOC Removal Requirements ....................................................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-5 Step 2 Enhanced Coagulation Target pH Values ............................................................................... 4-5

Table 4-6 EPA 10-day HA Values (µg/L) ................................................................................................................ 4-10

Table 5-1 Risk Associated with Contaminant Sources ....................................................................................... 5-1

Table B-1 Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant..................... B-1

Table B-2 Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Sheep Ranch WTP ............................................... B-4

Table B-3 Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant ......................... B-6

Table B-4 Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Jenny Lind WTP ................................................... B-9

Table B-5 Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP ............................................. B-11

Table B-6 Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP .................................. B-15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY ES-1

When California adopted the federal Surface Water Treatment Rule, a requirement was included

that systems conduct a watershed sanitary survey (WSS) and update the WSS every five years.

This WSS update for the Calaveras River covers the years 2011-2015 for Stockton East Water

District (SEWD) and the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). For the purposes of this report,

the Calaveras River watershed upstream of Bellota is included in this WSS. Within the watershed,

SEWD owns and operates the Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant (DJW WTP). CCWD owns

and operates the Sheep Ranch and Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plants (Sheep Ranch WTP and

Jenny Lind WTP).

The Sheep Ranch WTP intake is on San Antonio Creek, tributary to the South Fork of the Calaveras

River. The Jenny Lind and DJW WTP intakes are on the main-stem Calaveras River. The DJW WTP

also has a raw water supply from the Stanislaus River watershed. The two reservoirs in the study

area are New Hogan Reservoir and White Pines Lake.

The objectives of this WSS are to:

1. Comply with California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water

requirements,

2. Prepare an inventory and assessment of potential contaminant sources,

3. Review water quality data and evaluate ability to comply with drinking water regulations,

and

4. Present findings and any recommendations to maintain and improve water quality.

The following potential sources of contaminants are reviewed and presented in this WSS:

Forestry Activities

Irrigated agriculture and the use of pesticides

Livestock

Mining

Recreation

Solid and Hazardous Wastes

Urban Runoff and Spills

Wastewater

Wildfires

Wildlife

Most categories above present a low risk to water quality in the Calaveras River watershed. There

is no information to indicate that timber harvesting, agriculture, mines, solid and hazardous wastes,

urban runoff and spills and wastewater have contributed adversely to water quality in the study

period.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY ES-2

Cattle graze throughout the watershed; primarily in the lower rolling foothills in the winter and in

the higher elevations in the summer. Cattle grazing occurs upstream of New Hogan on private land

upstream of the confluence of the North and South Fork.

During 2011-2015, all three raw water intakes experienced elevated levels of total coliforms in the

raw water. For the Jenny Lind and DJW WTPs the increase in total coliforms was especially

noticeable during 2015. All three systems also provided five years of monitoring results for E. coli.

The E. coli results, as a more direct indicator of fecal impacts, do not show the same increases as

seen with the total coliform results. The elevated levels of total coliforms may be an indication of California’s ongoing drought and its impact on river and reservoir water quality, as opposed to an

indication of impacts from livestock, wildlife, recreation or wastewater facilities.

During the period of study, the data did not indicate a general trend in raw water turbidity. All

three raw water intakes experienced increases in turbidity associated with winter/spring storms.

On four occasions during 2011-2015, the raw water to the Sheep Ranch WTP spiked above 8 NTU,

which triggers a forced plant operation shutdown. The Jenny Lind WTP experienced a significant

turbidity spike during the last nine days of 2015. The intake to the Jenny Lind WTP showed an

increase in Total Organic Carbon (TOC) beginning in fall 2014 through the end of 2015. Where TOC

had typically been 2.5 to 3 mg/L up to that time, after fall 2014, the monthly measured TOC was 4

mg/L or higher with a maximum of 6.5 mg/L. The calculated Locational Running Annual Averages

(LRAAs) for all four of the Jenny Lind Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) compliance locations were

increasing from winter 2014 through the end of 2015. Several individual locations had TTHM

results over the MCL of 80 µg/L.

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-1

This section presents the regulatory purpose of the watershed sanitary survey, survey methods,

report organization, and abbreviations and acronyms.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENT FOR A WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY

The federal Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) promulgated by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1989 includes a recommendation for all surface water systems to

prepare watershed control plans. The State of California Title 22, Code of Regulations (CCR), Article

7, Section 64665, however, requires all water suppliers to conduct a sanitary survey of their

watersheds at least once every five years that evaluates potential contaminant sources within the

watershed that may impact drinking water quality.

Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations requires that the initial watershed sanitary survey

include a physical and hydrological description of the watershed, a summary of source water

quality monitoring data, a description of activities and sources of contamination, a description of watershed control and management practices, an evaluation of the system’s ability to meet requirements of Title 22 – Chapter 17: Surface Water Filtration and Disinfection Treatment, and

recommendations for corrective actions. Updates must include a description of any significant

changes that have occurred since the last survey which could affect the quality of the source water.

STANISLAUS/CALAVERAS RIVER GROUP

A number of public water systems formed the Stanislaus/Calaveras River Group (SCRG) as a

mechanism through which to prepare the WSS for the Stanislaus and the Calaveras Rivers. The

SCRG is composed of the Stockton East Water District, the Calaveras County Water District, the

Tuolumne Utilities District the Union Public Utility District, the South San Joaquin Irrigation

District, the City of Angels Camp, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry and

Fire Protection, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Knights Ferry

Community Services District .

The Stockton East Water District (SEWD) and the Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) divert

drinking water from the Calaveras River. For the purposes of this report, the study area consists of

the Calaveras River watershed upstream of Bellota.

The first Calaveras River WSS was completed in December 1995, and the most recent update was

completed in May 2011.

SURVEY METHODS

WQTS, Inc. and Karen Johnson Water Resources Planning prepared this watershed sanitary survey.

A literature search consisted of collecting and reviewing reports, maps, aerial photographs, data,

file documents, and other information from government agencies and others responsible for land

uses and activities in the watershed. Telephone and email contacts were made with various entities

for updated information and data.

The project kick-off meeting was held March 2, 2016. At that meeting the SCRG participating

agencies were provided with a written data request. The requested data included: water quality

data, information on modifications to intake and/or treatment facilities, changes in watershed



management, etc. Following the kick-off meeting, field surveys of selected locations in the watershed were conducted. A shared public Dropbox™ folder was set up to allow the easy exchange of large amounts of data. A progress meeting was held on May 26, 2016 with SCRG agencies.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report presents a description of the watershed, SCRG intake and treatment facilities,

identification of potential contaminant sources, and an analysis of water quality data. The content

and organization of this watershed sanitary survey are consistent with the format recommended in

the American Water Works Association California-Nevada Section Watershed Sanitary Survey

Guidance Manual (1993).

Report sections are described below. Appendices provide supporting information and data tables.

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION. This section presents the purpose of the watershed sanitary survey,

survey methods, report organization, and abbreviations used in the report.

SECTION 2 – WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. This section provides background

information on the watershed study area. It describes natural physical and hydrologic

characteristics. A summary is provided of the SEWD and CCWD surface water supplies and primary

infrastructure related to the raw water sources and brief descriptions of the SEWD and CCWD

treatment facilities.

SECTION 3 – POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES. This section provides a summary and update of

potential contaminant sources by land use. Each primary land use is described in terms of

significance for the potential to impact drinking water quality, potential contaminant sources in this

watershed, and agencies with watershed water quality protection responsibility and their

management activities. Planned changes to land uses in the watershed has been updated from the

last survey and are presented here.

SECTION 4 – WATER QUALITY REVIEW. Current drinking water regulations are summarized in this

section, along with a discussion of potential drinking water regulations within the next 5-years.

Source water quality data from the watershed study area and treated water quality data are

presented and reviewed.

SECTION 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This section provides a summary of key findings

and a list of recommendations.

APPENDIX A – Roche, L.M., et al. Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands. PLOS One. June 2013. Volume 8, Issue 6.

APPENDIX B – Title 22 Monitoring Results (2011-2015)

APPENDIX C – REFERENCES.



ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AL Action Level

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

BOF Bureau of Forestry

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene

CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate

Cal EMA California Emergency Management System

Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services

CCL Contaminant Candidate List

CCR Code of Regulations

CCWD Calaveras County Water District

CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

CEDEN California Environmental Data Exchange Network

CDPR California Department of Pesticide Regulation

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CFU Colony Forming Units

CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board

CS Collection System

CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency

CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

DBP Disinfection By-Products

D/DBP Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products

DDW SWRCB Division of Drinking Water

DJW WTP Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DWR California Department of Water Resources

DQAP Dairy Quality Assurance Program

E. coli Escherichia coli

EMA Emergency Management Agency

GPD Gallons Per Day

GPM Gallons Per Minute

HAA Haloacetic Acid

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

IOC Inorganic Chemicals

L Liter

LRAA Locational Running Annual average

LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MG Million Gallons

MGD Million gallons per day



mg/L Milligrams per liter

mL Milliliter

MPN Most Probable Number

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level

NL Notification Level

NOM Natural Organic Matter

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

OWTS Onsite Wastewater Treatment

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

psi Pounds Per Square Inch

PWS Public Water System

RAA Running Annual average

RCD Resource Conservation District

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SCRG Stanislaus/Calaveras River Group

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEWD Stockton East Water District

SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical

SPI Sierra Pacific Industries

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

SUVA Specific UV Absorbance

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

THMs Trihalomethanes

THP Timber Harvest Plan/Permit

Title 22 Division 4, Chapter 3, Title 22, California Code of Regulations

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TTHM Total Trihalomethanes

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule μg/L micrograms per liter

USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

UST Underground Storage Tank

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UV Ultraviolet

VOC Volatile Organic Chemical

WDR Waste Discharge Requirements



WFMP Working Forest Management Plan

WTP Water Treatment Plant

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facilities

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE


WATERSHED STUDY AREA AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

The Calaveras River watershed is located in Calaveras, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties in

northern California, with the majority of the watershed lying within the northwestern portion of

Calaveras County (see Figure 2-1). The western most part of the watershed is in San Joaquin County

with a small southwestern portion in Stanislaus County.

SEWD and CCWD operate three primary drinking water intakes in the Calaveras River watershed—two on the Calaveras River, and one on San Antonio Creek, a tributary to the South Fork Calaveras

River (see Figure 2-2). The intake locations are described below:

SEWD owns and operates a Water Treatment Plant (WTP) located in Stockton (Dr. Joe

Waidhofer WTP) which has an intake on the Calaveras River at Bellota, downstream of New

Hogan Reservoir.

CCWD owns and operates two WTPs in this watershed: Sheep Ranch WTP, which has an

intake on San Antonio Creek, downstream of White Pines Lake, and Jenny Lind WTP, which

has an intake on the Calaveras River, downstream of New Hogan Reservoir.

The Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP serves the City of Stockton and surrounding unincorporated areas. The

most recent population estimate for Stockton is 315,592 (CDOF 2016). The total population served by the plant is 33 , . The WTP’s current operating permit is for 65 MGD. The Calaveras River just

upstream of Bellota is one of two water supplies for the WTP; the secondary diversion is at

Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus River. A separate WSS covers the Stanislaus River supply. CCWD’s Sheep Ranch WTP serves the 134-person population of Sheep Ranch through 48

connections, and has a capacity of 30 gallons per minute (gpm). CCWD’s Jenny Lind WTP is located in the Rancho Calaveras subdivision about 3 miles south of Valley Springs. The WTP serves a population of 9,592 through 3,807 connections and has a capacity

of 6 MGD.







CALAVERAS RIVER WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION For purposes of the WSS, the Calaveras River watershed ends at SEWD’s Bellota intake. HYDROLOGY

The Calaveras River originates on the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Esperanza and Jesus

Maria creeks join to form the North Fork of the Calaveras River; and Calaveritas, San Antonio, and

San Domingo creeks join to form the South Fork. The North and South Forks of the Calaveras River

join about 7 miles above New Hogan Dam.

Historically, the Calaveras River was an intermittent stream with flows supplied almost entirely by

rainfall. Today, flows in the Calaveras River are regulated and controlled by New Hogan Dam and

Reservoir. The average annual run-off to New Hogan Reservoir is approximately 166,000 acre-feet.

Flows from rainfall runoff in the watershed typically occur from November through April. Rainfall

intensities are generally moderate but prolonged over several days. Resulting flows are usually

characterized by high, short-duration peaks.

New Hogan Reservoir and White Pines Lake are the largest water supply reservoirs in the

watershed. Historic mining ditches, pipes, and current drinking and agricultural water supply

diversions exist on tributaries to the North and South Forks of the Calaveras River. Water is

diverted from San Antonio Creek at the Sheep Ranch WTP intake. From New Hogan Dam, the river

flows about 18 miles to Bellota, where flow is diverted from the original Calaveras River channel

into Mormon Slough and the Dr. Joe Waidhofer intake.

TOPOGRAPHY

Extending to its confluence with the San Joaquin River, the Calaveras River watershed is a 473-

square-mile drainage basin that includes reservoirs and natural lakes. The watershed above the

largest reservoir, New Hogan, is 363 square miles. The flows from these waters support various

downstream uses, including hydropower generation, domestic and irrigation water supplies, and habitat. The river’s headwaters of the North and South Forks originate on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. The Calaveras River watershed is located primarily in the hilly to steep terrain of the

lower western slope of the Sierra Nevada.

The terrain varies from mild slopes and meadows in the western rolling foothills to more rugged

mountains and wilderness in the upper Sierra Nevada region. Deep ravines and steep ridges are

found between these areas, with parallel ridges separating the principal tributaries. Elevations

range from 130 feet at Bellota and 550 feet at New Hogan Dam to about 6,000 feet at the highest

point. From New Hogan Dam to Bellota, the Calaveras River basin consists primarily of foothills.

GEOLOGY

The geology of the Calaveras River watershed study area is meta-sediments and meta-volcanic rock

of Mesozoic age, overlain by tertiary sediment and volcanic rocks. Large granitic outcrops are

visible in the highest elevations. Upper elevation soils are typically fine textured, meta-volcanic

residual of moderate depth and good drainage. Most upper elevation soils are moderately shallow

to very shallow, generally loamy, and range from neutral to slightly acid or acid. Most soils are of

coarse fragments, and rock outcrops are common. In the lower elevations near New Hogan Dam,

soils are residual, derived from meta-sedimentary slate and schist, meta-basic igneous rocks,

granitic rock, and volcanic conglomerate.



The Calaveras River watershed lies within a historically low seismicity area. The only fault system

that could potentially cause surface rupture within Calaveras County is the Melones-Bear Valley or

Sierra Foothills fault system, which extends across the lower portion of the County, between

Murphys and New Hogan Reservoir.

VEGETATION

Plant communities in the Calaveras River watershed include grassland, brush land and chaparral,

and deciduous and coniferous forest. Dominant species include large oaks, willows, and alders, with

an undergrowth of herbaceous plants and scattered low shrubs such as California scrub oak, dwarf

live oak, chemise, digger pine, manzanita, poison oak, elderberry, California bay, and wild grape,

depending on water availability. Species of wildflowers commonly found near the river are shooting

star, buttercup, larkspur, and mariposa lily. Fruit and Nut Orchards, vineyards, and row crops are

grown at several locations adjacent to the Calaveras River, between New Hogan Dam and Bellota.

Vineyards are present along San Domingo and Calaveritas Creeks in the upper watershed.

LAND USE

The region is characterized by scattered rural residential land use in the lower watershed. Small

urban and commercial centers are concentrated at various locations along the major highways.

Water-based recreation resorts are located upstream of the Bellota intake at New Hogan Reservoir.

Land use in the Calaveras River watershed includes residential, forest, industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses. The watershed’s eastern edge lies within the Stanislaus National Forest;

however, no significant recreation sites are located within this part of the forest. A portion of the

Calaveras Big Trees State Park is located in the Calaveras River watershed. One of the three

campgrounds at the park is located in the Big Trees Creek watershed; Big Trees Creek flows into

San Antonio Creek, and subsequently the South Fork Calaveras River.

URBAN/RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL

The watershed is sparsely populated, with several small towns located near historical mining or

agricultural areas. The most recent population estimates available from the California State

Department of Finance (CDOF 2016) report the population of Calaveras County as 45,207. The only

incorporated city in Calaveras County is the City of Angels Camp, which has a population of 4,045

(CDOF 2016); however, Angels Camp lies outside the Calaveras River watershed boundary. Other

small communities within the Calaveras River watershed are located adjacent to the major

highways, including San Andreas, Jenny Lind, Linden, Rancho Calaveras, and Valley Springs in the

lower watershed and Arnold, Camp Connell, and Dorrington, in the upper watershed. Other

communities located further off the main roads include Calaveritas, Sheep Ranch, Mountain Ranch,

and Railroad Flat. Many upper watershed communities have both permanent and seasonal

residences. Many homes are located adjacent to the river and its tributaries.

CALAVERAS RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

This section discusses the location, description and water supply information pertaining to the

various elements of the Calaveras River system. The Calaveras River system consists mainly of

natural waterways. New Hogan Reservoir and White Pines Lake are the primary water supply

reservoirs in the watershed. A few small reservoirs are also located in the watershed upstream of

New Hogan Reservoir. These small reservoirs have much less impact on the main body of the river

but may impact the tributaries on which they are located. No surface WTPs are located on these

tributaries.



Three WTPs are located within the watershed: Dr. Joe Waidhofer, Sheep Ranch, and Jenny Lind. The

Sheep Ranch WTP receives its water from San Antonio Creek, downstream of White Pines Lake. The

Jenny Lind and Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTPs obtain their water from the Calaveras River, downstream

of New Hogan Reservoir.

WHITE PINES LAKE

White Pines Lake is located at the upstream end of San Antonio Creek in the Calaveras River watershed’s northeastern portion. CCWD owns and operates the lake. White Pines Lake is a multi-

purpose reservoir, providing water supply, along with incidental flood control and recreational

benefits. At high water level, the lake volume is 262 AF. The lake is supplied mostly by surface

water runoff, although natural springs may provide minimal flows into the lake. White Pines Lake is

typically operated so that it reaches maximum water level during April. Water is gradually released

year-round to provide a constant supply to the diversion supplying Sheep Ranch WTP. During

October and November, the lake level is usually at its lowest levels.

SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT

CCWD owns and operates Sheep Ranch WTP. The WTP serves a population of approximately 130

people through 48 service connections and has a capacity of 30 gpm. Water flows from White Pines

Lake into San Antonio Creek, which is the water source for the Sheep Ranch WTP.

Water is diverted from San Antonio Creek at a box diversion structure, where water flows over a

weir and into an intake pipeline. The raw water then flows by gravity to Fricot City for irrigation.

CCWD taps into the pipe at a raw water pump station, which lifts water into the WTP prior to

treatment and discharges to a clearwell. To begin treatment, a coagulant is added prior to filtration.

The chemical is mixed in-line with a static mixer. The water then flows through a 4-foot-diameter,

vertical pressure dual-media filter. From the filter, Chlorine is injected for disinfection and the

water flows directly to the 0.078 MG clearwell. The clearwell provides the detention time needed

for disinfection contact time (CT) credit. No direct connections exist between the filters and the

distribution system.

NEW HOGAN DAM

The New Hogan Dam provides flood protection to the City of Stockton and water for irrigation,

drinking, recreation, and hydroelectric power. New Hogan Dam is an earth filled structure, 200 ft

high and 1,935 ft long, completed in 1964. New Hogan Dam impacts both flows and water quality of

the Calaveras River downstream of the New Hogan Reservoir.

NEW HOGAN RESERVOIR

New Hogan Reservoir, centrally located in the watershed, is the main water storage facility on the

Calaveras River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) operates and maintains the reservoir

for multiple uses, including flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, agricultural

irrigation, and recreation. The reservoir stores 317,100 AF at maximum flood stage. USACOE, the

California Department of Water Resources, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation jointly developed

the operational plan for New Hogan Reservoir.



CCWD owns and holds the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to the

New Hogan powerhouse located at the base of

New Hogan Dam. The powerhouse is operated

under contract by Modesto Irrigation District.

The power facilities operate on a run-of-the-

river basis. The USACOE and SEWD control the

release of water from New Hogan Dam for flood

control or irrigation, respectively. When

reservoir head and flow release rates are

within operational parameters, the

powerhouse diverts water through the two

turbines. Flows beyond the capability of the

powerhouse are diverted through the dam's

outlet works. Due to the ongoing drought in

California, as of December 2015, New Hogan Reservoir held about 7% of its total capacity of

317,000 AF. Figure 2-3 presents the monthly storage in New Hogan reservoir from January 2011

through December 2015 (Source: CEDEN, 2016).

JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT

Owned and operated by CCWD, the Jenny Lind WTP is located in the Rancho Calaveras subdivision,

about 3 miles south of Valley Springs. The WTP serves a population of 9,592, through 3,807

connections, and has a capacity of 6 MGD.

The Jenny Lind WTP raw water intake is located on the Calaveras River, about 1 mile downstream

of the New Hogan Reservoir. Raw water for the Jenny Lind WTP is withdrawn from the river

through an infiltration gallery which is periodically backflushed (at least annually) to maintain

hydraulic capacity. Collection pipes are imbedded in the channel bottom and are covered with 1 to

3 feet of rock. The collection pipes route the raw water to the influent pump station. The influent

pump station has three vertical turbine pumps that deliver water to the WTP.

Raw water is pumped to the top of one of two ozone contactors, where it flows by gravity through

the treatment facilities. Ozone can be added to either chamber in each contactor. Sodium

hypochlorite can be added at the raw water pump station if the ozonation facilities are not in

service. CCWD had previously eliminated pre-chlorination to minimize disinfection byproduct

(DBP) formation and added the ozone contactor. In the first ozone contactor in the second chamber,

sodium permanganate is added for iron and manganese removal. Coagulant is added to the water

after exiting the ozone contactor and mixed as it enters the in-line, static mixer. A streaming current

detector controls coagulant addition rate. From the static mixer, the water enters the bottom of the

upflow adsorption clarifier. In the adsorption clarifier, the water passes through a bed of buoyant

adsorption media that provide three treatment processes: coagulation, flocculation, and

clarification. The adsorption clarifier effluent flows into a mixed media filter containing anthracite,

sand, and garnet. Filter effluent is chlorinated, and zinc orthophosphate is added for corrosion

control in the distribution system. Finally water is gravity-fed to the clearwell (0.245-MG capacity).

Water from the clearwell is pumped to a 2-MG storage tank.

Recently there was 70,868 acre wildfire (Butte Fire) in Calaveras/Amador counties, and

approximately 50% of the burned area is in the watershed for New Hogan reservoir and upstream

Figure 2-3 Monthly Storage in New Hogan

Reservoir (2011-2015)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Jan-11

May-11

Sep-11

Jan-12

May-12

Sep-12

Jan-13

May-13

Sep-13

Jan-14

May-14

Sep-14

Jan-15

May-15

Sep-15

AF

Monthly Storage in New Hogan Reservoir



of the treatment plant. Because of local soil conditions, runoff from the burned area will have a major impact on raw water quality and the District’s ability to produce drinking water. The primary raw water quality issues are anticipated to be manganese, turbidity, organics and

disinfection byproducts HAA5s and TTHMs in the finished water.

To address impacts to water quality, the District submitted an application and obtained funding

through the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES) and Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. As submitted to and approved by Cal-

OES/FEMA, the project is for a pretreatment packaged plant (Actiflo Unit) consisting of rapid sand

mixer, floc tank and sand balasted sedimentation basin. Its estimated total project cost is $3.75

million. The project has been approved and should be complete in 2018.

DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT (DJW WTP)

Owned and operated by SEWD, the DJW WTP serves the City of Stockton and surrounding

unincorporated areas. The most recent population estimate for Stockton is 315,592 (CDOF 2016).

The total population served by the plant is 337,656. SEWD is a wholesaler of treated surface water

to the City of Stockton, the California Water Service Company, and to San Joaquin County.

The DJW WTP has two water sources, the Calaveras River at Bellota and the Stanislaus River via the

Goodwin Reservoir. Water is diverted at the Bellota Weir and flows by gravity in a pipeline to the

WTP. Raw water can also be stored in four on-site reservoirs, with a total capacity of 120 MG.

The DJW WTP has a rated capacity of 65 MGD. Water entering the WTP is first treated with

chlorine gas for disinfection followed by addition of alum and polymer for coagulation. The water

then passes through rapid mix, flocculation, and sedimentation or plate settlers (depending on

treatment train). The settled water flows to dual-media (granular activated carbon [GAC] and

sand) filters. Filter-aid polymer is added to the water prior to filtration. Filter effluent flows

through the finished water conduit, where sodium hydroxide is added to adjust the pH level for

distribution system corrosion control. Chlorine gas is added to the finished water. The water then

flows to a buried, finished water reservoir, from which the water is pumped into the distribution

system.

SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES


The chapter begins with a description of the counties in relation to watershed boundaries. A

discussion of water quality parameters of concern is provided as a basis for understanding the risks

or impacts of potential contaminant sources. The potential contaminant sources in the Calaveras

River watershed are summarized in the following format.

CONCERNS: Water quality concerns associated with the potential contaminant source.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES: Land use or activities specific to this watershed along with

general locations.

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES: Agencies responsible for managing the land use or activity and general

practices employed to control the sources.

This chapter does not repeat background information provided in previous WSSs but does include

enough information necessary to provide a stand-alone document.

WATERSHED COUNTIES AND SUBWATERSHEDS

For many of the land uses and activities in the watershed, information is only available by county.

The Calaveras River watershed lies partially within three counties, however, the counties of San

Joaquin and Stanislaus contain less than five percent of the watershed.

Watershed lands within Stanislaus and San Joaquin County are primarily grazing or other low

intensity agriculture use or open space. There are no incorporated cities in the Calaveras River

watershed. Foothill communities (versus mountain) include Jenny Lind, Rancho Calaveras, Valley

Springs, Paloma, and San Andreas. The mountain communities of Mountain Ranch, Sheep Ranch,

and White Pines are in the watershed with Hathoway Pines, Avery, Arnold, and Calaveras Big Trees

State Park straddling the watershed divide with the Stanislaus River watershed.

Figure 3-1 provides a schematic of the watershed and water system facilities. This schematic

identifies the water treatment plant (WTP) subwatersheds: intakes and reservoirs in relation to the

Calaveras River and its tributaries. They do not contain all of the drinking water related facilities,

only those proximate to the treatment plant intakes. When discussing potential contaminate

sources, the water treatment plants or receiving waterbodies were often identified in this chapter

to aid in understanding correlations between contaminant sources and the water quality data

presented in Section 4.

The Calaveras River watershed is comprised of three subwatersheds for each of the three WTP

intakes: Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant (WTP) intake at Bellota, Jenny Lind WTP intake

at Jenny Lind, and Sheep Ranch WTP intake on San Antonio Creek, a tributary of South Fork

Calaveras River. The Bellota and Jenny Lind intakes are on the main stem Calaveras River,

downstream of New Hogan Reservoir. Bellota and Jenny Lind intakes are the downstream end of

two subwatersheds which reflect the entire Calaveras River watershed and are at risk of all

potential contaminants presented here.





WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS OF CONCERN

Water quality parameters of greatest concern in the watershed from a drinking water perspective

include the following.

Microorganisms

Disinfection by-product precursors

Turbidity (particulates)

Synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), herbicides, and

metals

These four groupings are described briefly below. A more thorough discussion as they relate to

Calaveras River watershed water quality over the five year study period is provided in Section 4,

Source Water Quality.

MICROORGANISMS

Microbiological organisms of concern as agents of waterborne outbreaks of infectious disease or

indicators of potential contamination in drinking water include gross bacterial measurements (total

coliform, e. coli, HPCs), viruses, and specific pathogens (such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia).

Cryptosporidium and Giardia, are currently the water quality parameters of greatest concern due to

the health risks and the difficulty of treatment. For example, Cryptosporidium strongly resists

chlorine disinfection. Also, there is no maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Cryptosporidium and

Giardia. Utilities demonstrate compliance with drinking water regulations for these two organisms

by meeting specific treatment technique requirements established by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (US EPA) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of

Drinking Water (DDW).

DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCT PRECURSORS

When chlorine is added in the treatment disinfection process, many chlorinated organic

compounds are formed as the chlorine reacts with the naturally occurring organic matter (NOM)

present in the water. Some of these compounds, referred to as disinfection by-products (DBPs), are

suspected of causing cancer in humans. Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids are

regulated. One important strategy for reducing DBPs is to reduce the amount of NOM present in the

water, if possible. Watershed management to reduce erosion (which carries organic material from

the land into water bodies) and control aquatic plant and algae growth (which generate organic

matter) can provide significant reductions in NOM, and therefore DBP formation. Because NOM

cannot be measured directly, TOC present in the water is typically used as a surrogate

measurement. Bromide in the source waters is of concern because of the reaction with ozone in the

treatment disinfection process to produce bromate (regulated in the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule).

TURBIDITY

Turbidity is a nonspecific measure of suspended matter such as clay, silt, organic particulates,

plankton, and microorganisms. Turbidity is not a specific public health concern, but other

constituents that are of concern can adhere or adsorb onto the surfaces or into the pores of the

particulates. Microorganisms in particular have been known to survive disinfection during

treatment by essentially hiding within the pores of particulates. The presence of turbidity is a

general indicator of surface erosion and runoff into water bodies, resuspension of sediment

material from the stream bed, or biological productivity. Following major storms, water quality is



degraded by inorganic and organic solids and associated adsorbed contaminants (e.g., metals,

nutrients, and agricultural chemicals) that are resuspended or introduced in runoff.

Turbidity is of concern from a watershed protection perspective primarily because it reduces the

efficiency of disinfection by shielding microorganisms and other contaminants, and it acts as a

vehicle for the transport of contaminants. An increase in raw water turbidity at the treatment plant

increases treatment operations (e.g., higher chemical doses, more frequent filter backwashing,

higher disinfectant dosages), increases the likelihood of TTHMs and other DBPs generated, and can

result in a greater level of risk of pathogens slipping through the treatment process.

SOCS, VOCS, HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES, AND METALS

SOCs and VOCs represent the largest group of water quality parameters currently regulated. Many

VOCs and some SOCs are formulated for or are the result of industrial processes. Pesticides and

herbicides are specifically formulated for their toxic effects on animals and plants. From a public

health perspective, these organics are identified as being or are suspected of being carcinogens,

mutagens, or teratogens. Heavy metals, originating primarily from rocks, minerals, and municipal

and industrial wastes, can have toxic effects on human health if of high enough concentration in the

water or if found in fish consumed by humans.

Table 3-1 provides an overview of the relationship between these water quality parameter groups

and potential contaminant sources in the Calaveras River watershed. The objective of this table is to

provide a basic understanding of the water quality concerns associated with the land uses and

activities.

Table 3-1: Relationship Between Contaminant Sources and Water Quality Concerns

Watershed Activities

Micro-

organisms

DBP

Precursors Turbidity

SOCs, VOCs,

& Metals

Forestry Activities ● ●

Irrigated Agriculture and Pesticides ● ● ●

Livestock ● ● ●

Mining ● ●

Recreation ● ● ● ●

Solid and Hazardous Waste ● ●

Urban Runoff and Spills ● ● ● ●

Wastewater ● ● ● ●

Wildfires ● ● ●

Wildlife ● ● ●

FORESTRY ACTIVITIES

Forestry activities are focused here on timber harvesting. Livestock grazing, off-road vehicles, and

wildfires are addressed in other sections.

CONCERN

Timber harvest operations have the potential to dramatically impact water quality, especially on

pristine lands. Logging and associated road construction may increase the rate of soil erosion,

thereby impacting waterways by increasing turbidity and nutrient loading. Applied herbicides can

contribute SOCs. In addition, flow volumes from the watershed can be significantly altered and may



show dramatic increases immediately following logging, slowly returning to normal over a period

of years.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

Calaveras County reports 143,000 acres of land in timber preserves with 36,257 million board feet

harvested in 2013. This was before the nearby Rim Fire, located within Tuolumne and Mariposa

counties, which resulted in salvage lumber harvesting becoming a priority at the expense of lumber

production within Calaveras County (Calaveras County, 2015a). Timber production in Calaveras

County is primarily found on Stanislaus National Forest lands.

Currently, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) is the only private industry that owns land within the

Stanislaus National Forest. SPI owns approximately 80,000 acres of forest in the Stanislaus National

Forest with about 5,000 acres in the Calaveras River watershed, of which 10 to 20 percent is

harvested annually.

Within the Calaveras River watershed, according to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

(CAL FIRE) there are no timber harvesting plans (THP) and non-industrial timber management

plans initiated at this time. A THP is the environmental review document outlining what timber is

requested to be harvested, how it will be harvested, and steps taken to prevent damage to the

environment. The landowner must replant the area according to the Forest Practice Rules

requirements (CAL FIRE, 2016b).

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

The Forest Service manages timber harvest lands within the Stanislaus National Forest portion of

the watershed. Most timber on Stanislaus National Forest land is harvested on general forest land,

with only small amounts and much more restrictive logging occurring in areas with wilderness,

near natural, wildlife, and wild and scenic river designations. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection implements the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of

1973 by developing forest practice regulations and policy applicable to timber management on

state and private timberlands. CAL FIRE monitors logging activities and enforces laws that regulate

logging on private lands. Together the Board of Forestry and CAL FIRE work to protect and enhance

resources that are not under federal jurisdiction. This includes: major commercial and non-

commercial stands of timber, areas reserved for parks and recreation, and lands in private and state ownership that are a part of California’s forests. Timber harvests of 2 to 1,000 acres are regularly permitted by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE stipulates

conditions under which timber harvest can occur including mitigation for potential water quality

impacts such as providing buffer zones near streams, and implementation of best management

practices (BMPs). Once a timber harvest plan is approved, the landowners are required to

implement erosion control practices. CAL FIRE continues to monitor timber harvest areas for one to

three years to assure that erosion control practices are still in place. Timber harvesting that occurs

near waterbodies containing anadromous fish populations is monitored for erosion control

practices for three years. All owners of private timberland in California must obtain an approved

THP before harvesting of commercial timber species is allowed. This applies to all lands that

contain commercial timber species, regardless of zoning.

In 2015, the Board of Forestry extended regulations to provide exemptions (through 2018) from

requirements for the cutting or removal of dead, dying, or diseased trees of any size. The intent is to



allow landowners to address fuel conditions made worse by the drought and tree mortality and to

reduce falling hazards associated with deteriorating trees (BOF, 2015).

The SWRCB worked with the Board of Forestry and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control

Board (CVRWQCB) to update Waste Discharge Requirements for federal and non-federal lands to

provide a General Order for timberland management activities. It waives the requirements to

submit a report of waste discharge and obtain waste discharge requirements. On October 8, 2013,

amendments to Public Resources Code went into effect and established a new type of timber

harvesting permit: the Working Forest Management Plan (WFMP). This new permit will allow non-

federal non-industrial landowners of 15,000 acres or less to harvest timber via a non-expiring

permit. The Board of Forestry was required to develop and implement the process for the WFMP by

January 2016; recent litigation between the BOF and stakeholders has delayed the implementation

of the WFMP, which is now anticipated to occur by January 2017. The CVRWQCB recognizes the

need to have a regulatory tool in place to cover the WFMP.

IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE AND PESTICIDES

CONCERN

The potential risks to water quality associated with agricultural cultivation are increased erosion,

loss of top soil, and use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Pesticide and herbicide use within

the study area is primarily for agricultural activities but these substances are also frequently

applied to forest lands, rights-of-way, and median strips by Calaveras County maintenance staff.

The pervious surfaces of agricultural lands absorb contaminants and runoff during precipitation

events. However, when soils are saturated or the surface is impervious, storm events result in

runoff from these lands conveyed as sheetflow or concentrated flows eroding the ground surface

and stream banks. High loadings of suspended solids into waterbodies result in high turbidity

levels containing pesticides and herbicides, and DBP precursors. Plowing and grading fields,

particularly on windy days, can cause the suspension of particles with atmospheric transport into

waterbodies. Soils with poor drainage characteristics may have higher runoff potential than more

permeable soils. Drip irrigation systems typically generate little or no runoff. If well managed, drip

irrigation minimizes irrigation season pesticide runoff from treated sites.

When herbicides and pesticides are applied, they can enter waterbodies by runoff from the land

due to stormwater flows or flood irrigation, overspray, or wind transport during application. These

chemicals are also applied aerially by crop dusters. Improper use and over-application of

pesticides, as well as over-irrigating, also can cause runoff of sediment and pesticides to surface

waters or can seep into groundwater. Sediment, pesticides, and excess nutrients can also affect

aquatic habitats by causing eutrophication, turbidity, temperature increases, toxicity, and

decreased oxygen.

Pesticide/herbicide use is categorized by season of application, with application occurring either

during the irrigation or dormant season. During the dormant season, organophosphate pesticides

are carried to surface water by stormwater runoff. Pesticide residues deposited on trees and on the

ground migrate with runoff water during rain events. Although practices are available to minimize

pesticide drift, once pesticides enter the atmosphere through volatilization, only natural

degradation limits their movement and fallout during rainstorms. Pesticides applied during the

dormant season, from December through February, are periodically washed off fields by storms



large enough to generate runoff. For the San Joaquin River Basin, studies have shown that the

amount of pesticide washed off is usually a very small fraction of the amount applied, ranging

between 0.05 and 0.13 percent for diazinon and 0.06 to 0.08 percent for chlorpyrifos, but it is

sufficient to cause toxicity to aquatic invertebrates (CVRWQCB, 2005)

In addition to the amount of pesticide applied, other factors affect the amount of pesticide in storm

runoff and pesticide loading. Soils with poor drainage characteristics may have higher runoff

potential than more permeable soils, and field slope, the presence and type of cover crop, and

antecedent moisture conditions also affect transport mechanisms. Irrigation methods affect the

magnitude of pesticide loading in the river. With furrow or flood irrigation, tailwater drains from

the end of the field and is usually discharged to a drainage channel that leads to a stream. In some

cases, systems are in place to recycle tailwater to another field, or to blend it with fresh irrigation

water and reapply it to another field. Tailwater return flows from flood and furrow irrigation

probably generate the largest loads because large volumes of water are discharged directly.

Relative to flood and furrow irrigation, sprinkler irrigation is likely to increase pesticide wash-off

from foliage, but will generate less tailwater if used appropriately. Drip irrigation systems typically

generate little or no runoff. If appropriately used, such irrigation methods are likely to minimize

pesticide runoff from treated sites during the irrigation season.

Illegal marijuana farms are of concern because of the lack of control of chemicals used in illicit

activities resulting in SOCs, hydrocarbons, herbicides, and pesticides making their way to

waterbodies by illegal dumping or septic disposal.


IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE. Agriculture in the Calaveras River watershed includes a diverse list of

crops, including field crops, apiaries, fruit and nut crops, livestock, poultry, and wine grapes.

Agricultural production in the region is primarily located on lands in San Joaquin and Stanislaus

counties with smaller areas under production in Calaveras County. There are several vineyards in

the watershed within the vicinity of the Calaveras River and its tributaries. Agricultural land use in

the lower elevations is predominantly rangeland; cattle grazing is discussed under Livestock.

The latest crop reports for Calaveras County indicate that the demand and prices for agricultural

crops have remained strong. According to the latest crop report (2014), wine grapes and English

walnuts are the top commodities after livestock in Calaveras County. Table 3-2 presents crop

acreages for the entire Calaveras County. The decrease in acreage over time may be due to the

ongoing drought.

Table 3-2: Crop Production Acreage - Calaveras County

Crop 2011 2012 2013 2014

Grapes (Wine) 900 910 910 900

Hay, Grain 400 300 300 200

Olives 140 140 130 130

Organic Farming 55 55 85 87

Walnuts 800 775 775 788 Source: Calaveras County, 2013 and 2015. Note: acreages are for entire county.



PESTICIDE AND HERBICIDES. Reports of controlled pesticide and herbicide use are submitted to the

California Agricultural Commissioner monthly providing chemical use, quantities, etc. Statewide,

farmers have reduced pesticide use over time. This shift has been influenced by more stringent

regulations from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). Other contributors to

the shift towards reduced pesticide use include increased pesticide costs, choices made by the

farmers to make economical and safety decisions, a small shift towards organic farming, and efforts

made by the local resource conservation districts.

Table 3-3 presents the overall pounds of pesticides used in Calaveras County 2011 through 2014;

usage includes lands in the Calaveras River watershed as well as the rest of the county. Pesticide

usage varies year to year depending on pest problems, weather, acreage and types of crops planted,

economics, and other factors.

Table 3-3: Pesticide Quantities

Pounds Applied

2011 2012 2013 2014

Calaveras

County 78,438 40,532 29,380 58,683

Source: CDPR, 2015a. Year 2015 not yet available. Note: pounds are for entire county.

The top five pesticides used in Calaveras County and the pounds applied are presented in Table 3-4.

Glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Round-up and is the most commonly used herbicide in the

United States. Methylated soybean oil is an adjuvant, a substance added to improve herbicidal

activity. Alpha-(para-nonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) is a detergent sanitizer used

in dairy food industry. Sulfur is the primary chemical used for wine grapes; it is applied as a

fungicide against powdery mildew. Strychnine is used to kill small vertebrates such as birds and

rodents.

Illegal cannabis farms were not observed during the survey site visit. Water quality contamination

associated with illegal farming is typically in rural mountainous areas with workers sleeping on-site

to protect the high value crops and liberal use of rodenticides. The concern of illegal cannabis farms

in the watershed (versus legal growing in which farmers report chemical usage to the County of

Calaveras as with other crops) differ from other crops because illegal activities are not accountable:

excessive use of pesticides and herbicides or use of banned rodenticides and other pesticides is

typically found with discovered illegal farms.


Programs established to control nonpoint source pollution from agriculture include joint efforts by

local, state, and federal agencies. The SWRCB oversees the statewide nonpoint source program,

with assistance from CDPR for pesticide usage. As described later under Livestock, the SWRCB

regulates agricultural runoff through its nonpoint source program. CDPR protects human health

and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and by fostering reduced-risk pest

management. CDPR requires full use reporting of all agricultural pesticide use and structural pesticides applied by professional applicators. CDPR works closely with California’s county agricultural commissioners, who serve as the primary enforcement agents for state pesticide laws

and regulations. County agricultural commissioners regulate pesticide use to prevent misapplica-



Table 3-4: Top Five Pesticides Used - 2014

Pesticide Commodity Pounds Acres

Glyphosate, Isopropylamine

Salt

Forest, Timberland 2,521 992

Rangeland - -

Walnut 291 259

Grape, Wine 287 253

Industrial Site - -

Landscape Maintenance - -

Rights-of-Way 1,490 77

Uncultivated Non-ag 159 57

All Other Sites 1,844 152

Total 6,591 1,789

Methylated Soybean Oil

Forest, Timberland 2,989 764

Rangeland 12 250

Walnut 44 157

Grape, Wine 43 90

Rights-of-Way 301 60

All Other Sites 18 28

Total 3,407 1,349

alpha-(para-nonylphenyl)-

omega-

hydroxypoly(oxyethylene)

Forest, Timberland 275 474

Rangeland 55 425

Walnut 15 199

Grape, Wine 6 92

Pistachio 10 66

Apple - -

Pear - -

All Other Sites 240 83

Total 602 1,339

Sulfur Grape, Wine 7,436 989

Total 7,436 989

Strychnine

Forest, Timberland 1 901

Grape, Wine <1 64

Rangeland <1 10

Walnut <1 9

All Other Sites <1 -

Total 2 984

All Other AIS 40,645 7,665

Total Pesticide Usage 58,683 13,360

Source: CDPR, 2015a

tion or drift, and possible contamination of people or the environment. County agricultural

commissioner staff also enforce regulations to protect groundwater and surface water from

pesticide contamination.



Farmers must obtain site-specific permits from their county agricultural commissioner to purchase

and use many agricultural chemicals. The commissioner must evaluate the proposed application to

determine whether it is near a sensitive area, such as wetlands, residential neighborhoods, schools,

or organic fields. State law requires commissioners to ensure that applicators take precautions to

protect people and the environment. Based on this evaluation, the county agricultural

commissioner may deny the permit or require specific use practices to mitigate any hazards. For

example, a permit may be contingent upon the method of application, time of day, weather

conditions, and use of buffer zones. Part of the commissioner’s duty in issuing a permit is to decide the need for a particular pesticide and whether a safer pesticide or better method of application can

be used and still prove effective.

In 2016, Calaveras County began the process of establishing requirements to regulate the growing

of medical marijuana/cannabis. The final regulations and management controls for water quality

will be addressed in the next WSS update.

Local governments such as the county Department of Agriculture and local resource conservation

districts play an active role in influencing practices of agricultural activities. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the University of California

Cooperative Extension Service provide technical and financial services for farmers. NRCS typically

provides conservation assistance through a nationwide network of resource conservation districts

(RCD) and local offices. Calaveras County does not have a RCD.

The NRCS works to help landowners, as well as federal, state, tribal, and local governments, and

community groups, conserve natural resources on private land. The NRCS has three strategies to

implement their goals of: high quality, productive soils; clean and abundant water; healthy plant

and animal communities; clean air; an adequate energy supply; and working farms and ranchlands.

Cooperative conservation: seeking and promoting cooperative efforts to achieve conservation

goals.

Watershed approach: providing information and assistance to encourage and enable locally-led,

watershed-scale conservation.

Market-based approach: facilitating the growth of market-based opportunities that encourage

the private sector to invest in conservation on private lands.

LIVESTOCK

CONCERN

Livestock can contribute microbial contaminants to a waterbody when feces are deposited directly

into the water or when runoff carries feces into the water; calves younger than six months appear

to be the most likely to shed Cryptosporidium oocysts. Pathogens are more difficult to treat than

pesticides and herbicides and there is a public health risk associated with pathogens. Within the

Calaveras River watershed, the Jenny Lind WTP uses ozone as a primary disinfectant which

significantly lowers the risk of a Cryptosporidium outbreak.

Animal waste includes ammonia, nitrates, salts, pathogens, and pharmaceuticals such as ceftiofur,

penicillin, and sulfa drugs (CDFA, 2015). The nitrogen and phosphorous can contribute to the



eutrophication of waterbodies and excessive algal growth; increased nutrient levels also increase

treatment costs.

In addition to microbial contamination, livestock can increase erosion causing particulate, turbidity,

and DBP precursor problems if they are allowed to overgraze an area and remove the vegetative

cover, compact soils, or are given direct access to a waterbody. Reduced vegetative cover and

compaction from animal trails can reduce stormwater infiltration resulting in increased runoff,

which increases soil erosion. Increased sedimentation can cause high turbidity reaching treatment

plants. Suspended soil particles can absorb and transport other pollutant to the intakes.

Contamination risks of rangeland grazing are associated with two primary activities: cattle

concentrating at waterbodies and storm events delivering runoff to waterbodies. Livestock with

access to waterbodies can directly deposit manure and its associated contaminants in the streams

and can disturb the shoreline and riparian vegetation resulting in erosion during precipitation

events. Cattle access streams and reservoirs when there are no water improvements to encourage

them to drink elsewhere, and water stations can be expensive to provide in rangelands with limited

water access as an alternative. Thus the risk of contamination is greater without water provisions.

Risks of loading viable Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts into waterbodies from rangeland cattle are

greatest during storm events because sheet flow from grazed areas transports sediment, along with

organic matter, nutrients, and pathogenic microorganisms from the manure. Check dams on small

water courses create watering spots for grazing cattle which can overflow during rainfall events,

releasing pathogens to waterbodies. In addition, if irrigated pasture is not properly managed,

irrigation water could run off the site and into waterways.


Land use in the Calaveras River watershed lower elevations (which could impact the Jenny Lind

WTP and Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP) is predominantly non-irrigated land used for cattle grazing. In

2014, Calaveras County had 198,000 acres of rangeland with 2,000 acres of irrigated pasture

(Calaveras County, 2015). Rangeland cattle typically include raising cows for breeding and raising

steers for sale.

Livestock grazing in the upper watershed began regulation in the Stanislaus National Forest in

1905 and on private lands, including SPI lands. The Stanislaus National Forest has had cattle

grazing in the summers (July to September) since the 1950s. During winter months, cattle are

moved to lower elevations. As summer approaches cattle are progressively moved to higher

elevations. Cattle graze in low densities throughout the watershed, depending on the terrain and

vegetation. Ranchers protect grazing areas in order to maintain permit status, the long term health

of their herd, and the availability of a healthy grazing environment.

Cattle appear to have either direct access to waterbodies or are grazing on lands that drain to

waterbodies that convey water to water treatment plant intakes. Grazing historically occurred

around New Hogan Reservoir from November through May but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(US ACE) eliminated most grazing on its lands. Grazing still occurs on lands adjacent to and with

direct access to the North Fork Calaveras River on private lands upstream of the confluence of the

North Fork and South Fork.

As presented in Table 3.5, cattle numbers in Calaveras County has declined since 2011. These data

represent the entire county, not just the study area watershed.



Table 3-5: Cattle in Calaveras County

2011 2012 2013 2014

Beef Cows 9,000 9,300 7,900 7,800

Source: CDFA, 2016b. California Agricultural Statistics Review, 2011 through 2014.


Runoff from grazed land is considered a non-point source of pollution and requires compliance with the SWRCB’s Non-Point Source Program, a program under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality

Control Act requiring permits for anyone discharging waste that could affect water quality in the

State. Typical BMPs to keep cattle from waterbodies include the provision of salt licks located away

from waterbodies, dedicated watering containers, and fencing of streams. Grazing provides the

benefit of reducing fire fuels. Fuels management can greatly reduce the impact of wildland fires in

the watershed.

Grazing is extensive on federal lands owned by the Forest Service and U. S. Bureau of Land

Management. Grazing on federal lands is governed by the Water Quality Management Plan for

National Forest System Lands in California. This plan utilizes range management BMPs including

range analysis and planning, grazing permits, and rangeland improvements.

Forest Service initiated a water quality monitoring pilot program in response to concerns regarding

cattle grazing and water quality. Forest Service study is investigating microbial contamination,

nutrients, and temperature, as well as overall livestock impacts, such as streambank alteration. In

the first year of the study, 2010, the focus was on the Stanislaus River. Forest Service monitored

creeks upstream and downstream of recreation sites and cattle grazing sites. The 2010 study found

that the coliform data were below EPA and CVRWQCB standards in all the recreation sites. Forest

Service expanded the program in conjunction with the University of California at Davis and

produced a report on the results of the analysis. The documented results are provided in Appendix

A. The conclusions were that cattle grazing, recreation, and provisioning of clean water can be

compatible goals on national forest lands.

The Rangeland Water Quality Management Program developed by UC Cooperative Extension, Cattlemen’s Association, and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, continues to be used as a voluntary management program for private grazing lands. The training supports ranchers to

develop and implement water quality management plans and BMPs on their lands.

MINING

CONCERN

Active, inactive, abandoned, and unknown mining operations can contribute elevated levels of

mercury, arsenic, copper, and other metals to waterbodies. Instream suction dredge mining is

currently prohibited and is not discussed here. The risk with active mines is associated with

accidental discharges. Sand and gravel resource extraction can result in elevated levels of turbidity

and sedimentation if berms separating mining activities from waterbodies are breached or if fuels

from equipment leak.



Abandoned mines pose the greatest risk to water quality by contributing high levels of metals from

exposed soils and tailings transported through runoff. Abandoned mines are not only hazards to the

public, but if accessed by the public typically have extensive trash left behind, including cans and

flashlight and lantern batteries.

There is little known about the capability and risks of unknown mines to contribute contaminated

runoff and sediment. Historical mining operations had little regard for environmental impacts and

the sites did not require reclamation plans when operations ceased as they do presently.


Most of the mines within the watershed are inactive historic gold mines in the foothills and higher

elevations. Historically, the resources mined in Calaveras County include copper, gold, limestone,

and limestone products. Many of the old workings and tailings piles have drastically altered the river’s course and flow. In more recent years, asbestos, gold, industrial minerals, limestone, and sand and gravel have been the most active segments of the county’s mineral industry. Within the watershed, placer and hard rock mining has occurred along the lower Calaveras River,

from the confluence with Cosgrove Creek below New Hogan Reservoir to the South Gulch area

below Jenny Lind WTP (within the Dr. Joe Waidhofer WTP watershed). The disturbed lands around

South Gulch are extensive and are from historical and active mining operations. Acres of mine

tailings can be found northwest of Milton, along Milton Road.

Active and idle mines within the Calaveras River watershed are listed in Table 3-6. The State

Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation periodically publishes a list of active, idle,

and closed mines regulated under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 that meet provisions set forth under California’s Public Resources Code. Table 3-6: Active Mines – Calaveras River Watershed

Mine Name Commodity Proximate Waterbody

E. I. G. Mine Pumice San Domingo Creek

All Rock Sand & Gravel Calaveritas Creek

Quarry #6 Limestone South Fork Calaveras

Hogan Quarry Stone Upstream of Jenny Lind

Intake

Jenny Lind Tailing Pile

Removal

Stone Upstream of Bellota Intake

Jenny Lind Aggregate Quarry Sand & Gravel Upstream of Bellota Intake

Robbie Ranch Sand & Gravel Upstream of Bellota Intake

Snyder Clay Pit Clay New Hogan Reservoir

Chili Gulch Quarry Rock New Hogan Reservoir

John Hertzig Sand & Gravel Lead New Hogan Reservoir

Source: CDOC, 2016; proximity to waterbodies approximated by author

The Calaveras Cement Company on Pool Station Road near San Andreas and Hogan Quarry

downstream of New Hogan Dam have CVRWQCB permits (i.e., Waste Discharge Requirements).

Calaveras Cement Company mines limestone and the site drains to the South Fork Calaveras River.



Hogan Quarry is a hard rock aggregate mining and processing facility. There are no unpermitted

facilities in the watershed.


ACTIVE AND INACTIVE MINES. In Calaveras County, all mineral extraction operations require mining

use permit approval prior to commencement of operations. Calaveras County then examines

project specific impacts from the operation. Active mines are usually allowed only inert or

nonhazardous waste releases; mining operations can meet these conditions by controlling the

acidity of their discharges and by implementing other management practices.

The CVRWQCB Mining Program oversees discharge of mining waste from active and inactive mines.

Discharges from active mines are regulated through the issuance of waste discharge requirements

and will usually include all surface impoundments, tailing ponds, and waste piles. Regulations have

prescriptive and performance standards for waste containment, monitoring, and closure. Inactive

and abandoned mines that are threatening or impacting surface and groundwater are regulated by

Title 27, SWRCB Order #92-49 and other laws and regulations for closure of mine sites and cleanup.

METHYL MERCURY. In 2010, SWRCB began a process to develop a statewide mercury control

program for reservoirs. The three main goals of the program are as follows.

1. Reduce fish methyl mercury concentrations in reservoirs determined to be mercury-

impaired

2. Have a control program in place for reservoirs in the future determined to be mercury

impaired.

3. Protect reservoirs not currently mercury impaired from becoming mercury impaired.

New Hogan Reservoir was listed under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) as a mercury impaired

reservoir. This reservoir is listed in the SWRCB’s draft Phase I Statewide Mercury Control Program

to address mercury in reservoirs. Phase I will include pilot tests to manage water chemistry in

reservoirs (e.g., oxidant addition to reservoir bottom waters, sediment removal or encapsulation,

etc.) and to manage fishers to reduce bioaccumulation (e.g., intensive fishing, changes to fish

stocking practices). The mercury control program is also intended to address the cleanup of mine

sites upstream of mercury-impaired reservoirs, and work with California Air Resources Board to

reduce atmospheric deposition of mercury.

RECREATION

CONCERN

Recreational use of a waterbody poses a wide range of water quality risks, depending on the

specific activity, proximity to intakes, and loadings. For example, body contact activities introduce

microorganisms; microorganisms are of greater concern from houseboat waste because of the

accidental release of large volumes of waste directly into a waterbody. Power boating contributes

VOCs and allows boaters to access remote areas of a reservoir with no restroom facilities. Shoreline

access can increase erosion, causing turbidity, particulate contributions, and DBP precursors.

Marinas can have accidental discharges into waterbodies as a result of resort and marina

operations; these loadings would likely be much greater than for individual boats, but less

frequently spilled. Activities such as the refueling of boats, storage of fuel, pumping houseboat



wastes, launching of boats, and maintenance of facilities (including cleaning and washing of boats)

can result in pollutants being discharged to a waterbody.

Illegal dumping could include food waste, hazardous and other materials. Illegal camping generally

results in the improper disposal of fecal waste.


Recreation is a significant activity in the Calaveras River watershed which includes access to

Stanislaus National Forest and Calaveras Big Trees State Park. Recreational opportunities

throughout the watershed, but primarily at New Hogan Reservoir, include swimming, boating,

fishing, waterskiing, and non-water contact activities such as camping, hiking, picnicking, wine

tasting, and sightseeing. There are several public and private owned reservoirs in the watershed.

Recreational use, with body contact, of the Calaveras River and its tributaries occurs throughout the

length of the river, concentrated at access points. A discussion of recreational activities associated

with specific sites in the watershed is provided along with a discussion of unauthorized activities.

Because the Stanislaus National Forest has minimal land within the Calaveras River watershed with

no organized recreational facilities, it is not discussed here.

CALAVERAS BIG TREES STATE PARK. Calaveras Big Trees State Park, operated by the California State

Department of Parks and Recreation, is located within both the Stanislaus River and Calaveras

River watersheds. The park has several campgrounds; North Grove campground and two group

campgrounds are all within the Calaveras River watershed located near the park entrance. The

group campgrounds are north of Highway 4. North Grove has 73 campsites for tents and

recreational vehicles (RV). Different facilities open at different times during the year, but the park is

closed from December to February and the restrooms are closed November through April.

North Grove campground is located on Big Trees Creek which drains across Highway 4 to White

Pines Lake. No swimming is allowed in Big Trees Creek. Other activities available at the park

include hiking, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing. The park averages 194,000 visitors per year

(State Parks, 2016).

The North Grove campground, visitor center, ranger office, day use area, and Jack Knight Hall is

served by a septic tank and leachfield. The park also has vault toilets. There are six pit toilets

available in the environmental (tent) campsites. An RV sanitation station is located near the park

entrance (State Parks, 2015). The North Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant is one of eight

wastewater treatment facilities within the Calaveras Big Trees State Park. The plant receives waste

from the campgrounds, RV/trailer dump stations, and the visitor center. The effluent collection

system includes a 20,000-gal septic tank and 3,400 linear feet of piping. Collected wastewater is

sent to a clearwell where it can be directed to a pump station and then to a leachfield, or sent to the

sprayfield disposal area. The site drains to San Antonio Creek, upstream of the Sheep Ranch WTP.

WHITE PINES LAKE. White Pines Lake is on San Antonio Creek near Arnold and is the headwaters for

the Sheep Ranch WTP. Calaveras County Water District (CCWD) owns White Pines Lake and a band

of property around the lake, 95.4 acres in total. CCWD leases 80 acres of its property to White Pines

Park and to the Friends of the Logging Museum. The reservoir was once surrounded by a lumber

mill; Sierra Nevada Logging Museum is located by the reservoir. CCWD also leases portions of the

White Pines property to the Courtright Emerson Ballpark and to the local Moose Lodge.



Volunteers operate White Pines Community Park as a private park. The Park has fishing, 40 picnic

tables, 25 barbecues, softball field, beach, and a playground. There is no motorized boating but

hand launched fishing boats and canoes are allowed. Both body contact and non-body contact (e.g.,

boating) recreation are permitted. Low speed boating (no motors), kayaking, and canoeing are

allowed on the reservoir with access available at a public boat launch. White Pines Park has no

marina services or boat fuel. Park entry is free, so no usage statistics are available. However, the 60

parking spaces are full all summer and, on weekends, parking spills out into the adjacent

neighborhood. The Arnold Rim Trail leads south from the reservoir 10.5 miles to Sheep Ranch Road

near Avery.

NEW HOGAN RESERVOIR. New Hogan Reservoir is located in the oak and brush covered foothills of

the Sierra Nevada. When full, the reservoir has 50 miles of shoreline which extends nearly eight

miles upstream to the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Calaveras River. The reservoir

has multiple areas of day and overnight use, including camping, boating, waterskiing, hiking and

mountain bike trails, a disc golf course, equestrian trails, and swimming. Wrinkle Cove is a popular

swimming area of the reservoir. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) allows pets in

recreation areas, and posts park rules in public areas. Boat launching is available at four public boat

ramps. No marina services or boat fuel are available. Hunting of turkey, quail, dove, and waterfowl

with a bow or shotgun is allowed on most of the US ACE lands, except the northwest side of the

reservoir.

Camping and picnicking are allowed in designated areas. Picnic sites are located in Fiddleneck Day

Use Area and at the New Hogan Dam Observation Point near the Park Headquarters. The area is

also a staging area for an eight mile equestrian trail on a scenic loop that winds along the reservoir

and through the foothill chaparral. Visitation at New Hogan Reservoir averages 300,000 visitors

annually (ACOE, 2016).

The three developed campgrounds include approximately 250 campsites with toilet facilities, both

permanent and portable. Acorn East and Acorn West have flush toilets, while Oak Knoll is more

primitive. A group campground is also available at Coyote Point. Thirty boat-in campsites at Deer

Flat are available on a first-come first-serve basis from May through September. There is a full-scale

golf course to the northwest. Golf course lands drain to the Calaveras River below the dam and

upstream of the Jenny Lind intake.

The New Hogan Lake Recreation Area has vault, chemical, and flush toilets. The chemical toilets are

pumped regularly. The pit toilets are self-contained, and are also pumped regularly. Sewage from

the flush toilets is piped to holding tanks. The liquid is pumped out to settling/evaporation ponds.

This facility operates under a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit.

LESS FORMAL RECREATION AREAS. There are numerous access points allowing public access to the

water along the North Fork and South Fork Calaveras River and its major tributaries Jesus Maria

Creek, Calaveritas Creek, and San Antonio Creek. The Arnold Rim Trail by White Pines is open year

round.

UNAUTHORIZED USES. Unauthorized activities that may be potential contaminant sources include:

illegal dumping, illegal drug manufacture and manufacturing waste disposal, unauthorized

discharge into a surface water, and unsanctioned recreational activities (e.g., off-road vehicle use or

illegal camping).



No significant illegal or unauthorized activities occur at the reservoirs in the watershed; activities

that do occur are well controlled. Within Calaveras Big Trees State Park occasional dumping of

trash does occur and is cleaned up by park maintenance staff. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is not

allowed, and are prevented from entering the State Park at the three entrance stations. Occasionally

an unauthorized woodcutter is encountered. The rangers patrol all areas of the park frequently. The

Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation, especially impacts from motor vehicles, as one of the key threats facing the nation’s forests today. In addition, OHV impacts have created unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacted cultural

resources sites (Forest Service, 2016).


Calaveras Big Trees State Park is managed by the California State Parks. The US ACE rangers and

Calaveras County Sheriff's Department deputies patrol all areas of New Hogan Lake Recreation

Area. Unauthorized activities are stopped at the entrances or are identified and stopped during

patrols.

White Pines Park is managed by a volunteer organization. CCWD, however, owns the land and

ensures that water quality is not jeopardized. Body contact is not allowed in Big Trees Creek in

Calaveras Big Trees State Park nor in White Pines Lake (although not enforced), greatly reducing

risk of pathogen contamination to the Sheep Ranch WTP.

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL

CONCERN

Waste disposal facilities may result in groundwater contamination (which may seep to surface

water) even after a site has been closed. Therefore, both open and closed waste disposal facilities

were investigated.

Authorized municipal solid waste disposal sites are permitted and monitored and are unlikely to be

a significant source of contamination under normal operation. However, improper maintenance,

negligent operation, or natural disasters, such as a fire followed by rainfall, may lead to the release

of leachate containing bacteria, pathogens, metals, or other contaminants. Solid waste from the

treatment dewatering process (filter wash water and sludge lagoons) at water treatment plants and

wastewater treatment plants is stored in ponds adjacent to the treatment facilities for off-site

disposal or land application. These lagoons are designed to have adequate capacity; capacity

exceedance is infrequent and associated with extreme precipitation events. Runoff from

composting facilities composting green waste can contain nutrients and TOC associated with stored

materials in stages of decomposition. Stormwater permits are required for composting facilities.

Underground storage tanks (UST) and other spills, leaks, investigations and cleanup sites all pose a

threat to water quality. While the majority of gasoline and chemical spills will usually be of greatest

concern for groundwater quality, runoff and groundwater plumes from contaminated sites can also

impact surface waters. Precipitation may wash superficial surface spills into nearby drainages,

which may eventually flow into larger streams, rivers, reservoirs, etc. Moreover, contaminated

groundwater plumes may flow to lower elevations (from the spill site) and re-emerge, contributing

contaminated water to large waterbodies such as reservoirs.




LANDFILLS. The San Andreas transfer station, located in the watershed’s northeastern area, is used

for the consolidation of waste before transfer to solid waste disposal sites located outside the

watershed area. Separate bins are available for recycling. Yard waste, tires and appliances with

Freon must be segregated for recycling and are not allowed to be dumped with household trash. No

other solid or hazardous waste disposal facilities are located in the Calaveras River watershed.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS. As of March 2016, there are 185 leaking underground storage tank

(LUST) open and closed clean-up sites in Calaveras County and 224 sites in Tuolumne County. The

open (active and inactive) and closed LUSTs within the Calaveras River watershed are presented in

Table 3-7. Open cases include site remediation, monitoring, and assessment.

Table 3-7: Leaking Underground Storage Sites

Community Open/Active Open/Inactive Closed

Arnold 0 0 17

Camp Connell 0 0 3

Dorrington 0 0 1

Hathaway Pines 0 0 2

Jenny Lind 0 0 3

Mountain Ranch 0 0 3

Rancho Calaveras 0 1 0

San Andreas 3 1 22

Sheep Ranch 0 0 3

Valley Springs 2 1 8

White Pines 0 0 1

Source: SWRCB, 2016a


The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), under the California Environmental

Protection Agency, manages landfills within California. The CIWMB is the state agency designated

to oversee, manage, and track California's 92 million tons of waste generated each year. Landfills

are also subject to CVRWQCB waste discharge requirements. The CIWMB provides funds to clean

up solid waste disposal sites and co-disposal sites (those accepting both hazardous waste

substances and nonhazardous waste). These funds are available where the responsible party

cannot be identified, or is unable or unwilling to pay for a timely remediation, and where cleanup is

needed to protect public health and safety or the environment.

Underground storage tanks are permitted and regulated by the environmental health departments

for Calaveras County and Tuolumne County. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

typically handles cases in which a leaking storage tank is involved. Cases are monitored closely for

remediation activities and are not closed until the leak is properly remediated.

The CVRWQCB requires a permit to install a UST. BMPs should be in place by the UST owners to

ensure the safety of the tank. Such BMPs include secondary containment devices, monitoring wells



and proper maintenance. Many of these sites are former industrial facilities and dry cleaners, where

chlorinated solvents were spilled, or have leaked into the soil or groundwater.

The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) was established by the State to improve the

coordination of hazardous materials management. The following agencies are identified as the

representative CUPA in the watershed.

Calaveras County Environmental Health Department

San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department

Stanislaus County Environmental Resources

The county CUPAs consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative

requirements for the following hazardous waste and hazardous materials programs.

Hazardous Materials Disclosure

California Accidental Release Prevention Program

Underground Storage Tank Program

Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks

Hazardous Waste Generator

URBAN RUNOFF AND SPILLS

CONCERN

Stormwater runoff from paved highways and streets, vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance

wastes, outdoor washing, and parking lots contain many pollutants associated with automobiles

such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals (e.g., lead, cadmium, and copper), asbestos, and rubber. Urban

runoff from landscaped areas and impervious surfaces contribute pesticides, herbicides, and

nutrients; sediment; trash; bacteria and pathogens; and metals such as copper, zinc, and nickel.

Runoff drains into storm drains, which convey untreated water into a local stream, eventually

making its way to the Calaveras River or reservoirs.

Sources of fecal contamination in urban runoff include domestic and wild animals, in addition to

human sources from illegal camping, illicit connections, or dumping to the storm drain system,

septic system leaks, or sewage spills. Since fecal coliforms are used as indicators of fecal

contamination, their presence (as evidenced by those communities that monitor runoff) indicates

that urban runoff typically carries a significant amount of fecal material into waterbodies. The

actual amount of pathogens (or risk to human health) from urban runoff cannot be extrapolated

from indicator organism data.

Automobile, truck, watercraft, and marina accidents can result in spilled cargo content or vehicle

fuel spills to waterbodies. Leaked or spilled hazardous materials, petroleum products (gasoline,

motor oil), or other fluids can introduce SOCs, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons into a waterbody

from runoff, vehicles driving into waterbodies, watercraft malfunctioning or sinking, etc. Hazardous

waste spills pose a direct or potentially direct threat to water quality. Sewage spills from sewer overflows and milk trucks result in pathogen contamination, including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Transported hazardous materials could include fuel, pesticides, solvents, and a variety of

other materials.




Drainage directly to the Calaveras River, reservoirs, and tributaries is of greatest concern near

intakes because of the lack of blending and time before the contaminants reach the WTPs. Runoff

concerns, and spills and accidental releases are discussed here.

STORMWATER RUNOFF. There are approximately 13 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) stormwater permittees in the Calaveras River watershed. Dischargers must comply with

NPDES stormwater discharge permits issued individually to each facility. Table 3-8 lists the

permittees that have had enforcement actions or violations within the past five years.

Table 3-8: NPDES Stormwater Permittees with Enforcement Actions or Violations

Facility Name Order No. Regulatory

Measure Community Waterbody

Effective

Date

All Rock

Aggregates

2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater

Industrial

San Andreas Calaveritas Creek 3/30/1992

Calaveras Cement

Company


Industrial

San Andreas South Fork

Calaveras

4/6/1992

Calaveras Unified

School District


Industrial

San Andreas New Hogan

Reservoir

1/30/2013

Valley Springs

Recycling Inc.


Industrial

Valley Springs Cosgrove Creek 9/16/2013

Gold Creek

Woodgate Estates


Construction

Valley Springs Cosgrove Creek 4/15/2016

Khosla Residence 2009-009-DWQ Stormwater

Construction

Sheep Ranch San Antonio Creek

above Sheep

Ranch WTP

2/5/2008

Source: SWRCB, 2016b.

SPILLS. Hazardous materials spills include sewer overflows, fuel spills from vehicle and boating

accidents, and other spills reported to the State Office of Emergency Services.

Four California State Highways traverse the Calaveras River watershed: Highway 49 (north-south),

and the west-east alignments of Highway 4, Highway 26, and a short stretch of Highway 12. These

four highways are major thoroughfares through the Sierra Nevada, but primarily serving inter- and

intra-county traffic.

As shown in Figure 2-1, Highway 4 enters the watershed north of Copperopolis, leaves the

watershed at the north end of the City of Angels Camp, then enters again and follows the watershed

divide between the Calaveras River and Stanislaus River watersheds between Red Apple Drive and

Camp Connell. Depending on where a spill occurs, the spill on Highway 4 could impact Calaveras

River tributaries or drain to the south out of the watershed. To the east of the watershed, Highway

4 is closed often from November through April along the summit of Ebbetts Pass. Highway 4 is not

plowed east of the Mount Reba turnoff near Alpine Lake. A spill along Highway 4 could drain to San

Domingo Creek along most of its alignment in the watershed, and possibly San Antonio Creek and

While Pines Lake at the eastern end of the watershed.

Highway 26 enters the watershed in the west at Bellota in San Joaquin County, near the intake for

the DJW WTP. The highway runs parallel to the Calaveras River. It travels east into Calaveras



County through Rancho Calaveras, Valley Springs, and Paloma; the highway then follows the

drainage divide between the Calaveras River and Mokelumne River watersheds between Paloma,

the southern end of Mokelumne Hill, and Glencoe. Depending on where a spill occurs, the spill on

Highway 26 could impact the North Fork Calaveras River or drain to the north out of the watershed.

State Route 12 enters the watershed at Valley Springs and travels east along Highway 26. When

Highway 26 veers north towards Glencoe, Highway 12 continues east towards San Andreas where

it ends at the junction with Highway 49, just after it crosses the North Fork of the Calaveras River.

Highway 49 enters the watershed from the north at Mokelumne Hill and travels south crossing the

North Fork Calaveras, to the community of San Andreas, then crossing Calaveritas, San Antonio, and

San Domingo creeks before leaving the watershed at the north end of the City of Angels Camp.

Most of the hazardous materials spills, however, are reported are on local streets. Spills are

reported to the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) which records the spill type,

quantity, and location, and whether a waterbody was affected. Table 3-9 provides the number of

reported hazardous material spills in Calaveras County within the Calaveras River watershed

during the previous five years.

Table 3-9: Hazardous Material Spills within the

Calaveras River Watershed

Year Reported Spills

2011 4

2012 8

2013 15

2014 9

2015 10

Average 9 Source: COES, 2016

There were several petroleum products spilled during this time, several reports of perceived septic

system failures, and possible meth lab runoff. But the majority reported were sewer overflows from

blocked lines. There were no spills reported in San Joaquin County or Stanislaus County within the

watershed.


STORMWATER RUNOFF. Stormwater and dry weather runoff in the Calaveras River watershed is

regulated through the NPDES federal and stormwater permitting process. The NPDES program is

mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act, and administered and enforced in California

by the SWRCB through the RWQCBs. The SWRCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program

regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) that

discharge into waters of the United States. The RWQCB issues Waste Discharge Requirements and

NPDES permits for the discharge of stormwater runoff from MS4s. The permits are reissued

approximately every five years.



The NPDES permits require large and medium municipalities to develop stormwater management

plans and conduct monitoring of stormwater discharges and receiving waters. The permits also

require programs to control runoff from construction sites, industrial facilities, and municipal

operations; eliminate or reduce the frequency of non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater

system; educate the public on stormwater pollution prevention, and better control and treat urban

runoff from new developments. Since 2003, small communities have been required to develop

stormwater management plans, but do not have to conduct monitoring. Small communities are

defined as having a population of at least 10,000, a population density of at least 1,000 persons per

square mile, and lying within an urbanized area.

The new NPDES stormwater permit for industrial activities is effective July 1, 2015. New features

include electronic filing requirements, implementation of stormwater pollution prevention plan

structural and nonstructural BMPs, design storm standards, monitoring requirements, exceedance

response action process.

The CVRWQCB determined that within Calaveras County, selected community areas were

designated as regulated MS4s and Calaveras County is required to comply with the statewide General Permit that was adopted by the SWRCB for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. The MS s include publicly-owned and maintained roadside

ditches, culverts, channels, and related systems for the collection and conveyance of stormwater

runoff. Consistent with these requirements, Calaveras County prepared a Stormwater Management

Plan that identifies potential sources of stormwater pollution from within the county, and includes

a comprehensive program to reduce identified pollutant discharges. This program includes plans

for the implementation of best management practices designed to reduce the discharge of

pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The County’s General Plan update process now includes consideration of State-mandated

requirements for the control of stormwater runoff discharge rates, for the conservation of natural

areas, and for fostering development that will minimize adverse impacts on water quality and

associated water resources. The general public and businesses have been affected because the SWRCB required that the County adopt an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of virtually all non-stormwater into the County storm drain system. Previously, the County’s Grading Ordinance simply required compliance with the fairly generalized requirements that are contained in the California Building Code. The new Grading Ordinance

includes these requirements plus additional measures designed, among other things, to better

control off-site sediment discharges. The Ordinance references a Grading, Drainage, Erosion, and Sediment Control Design Manual that includes more detailed design guidelines and procedures needed to carry out the purposes of the Ordinance. The new Ordinance also designated the

Department of Public Works as the single entity with direct responsibility for all grading work. In

addition, the Department of Public Works submits annual reports to the CVRWQCB summarizing

regulatory compliance status and describing the progress made in completing identified control

measures

SPILLS. Typically, water treatment plant operators are notified of hazardous materials spills or other

significant events by the State Office of Emergency Services Spill Prevention and Response, or

County health services, public works department, or office of emergency services. A county may be notified by the sheriff’s dispatch center, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans, or by



its own road maintenance or flood control staff. As discussed under Solid and Hazardous Waste, the

CUPA for each county is responsible for coordinating the accidental release prevention program

and is contacted if there is a spill.

At Calaveras Big Trees State Park, if a spill occurs on Highway 4, the fire department is contacted. If

there is a spill in the park, the following agencies are contacted: Cal EMA, Calaveras County

Environmental Health Department, and CVRWQCB.

A spill in White Pines Lake or in the community park would be immediately reported to CCWD,

which has a maintenance crew stationed nearby. At New Hogan Lake, when a spill occurs the

following agencies are contacted: Calaveras County, Cal EMA, CCWD, and SEWD.

WASTEWATER

CONCERN

Sanitation facilities collect, treat, and dispose of human waste and can pose a variety of water

quality risks when they fail. Failures of treatment plants and onsite wastewater treatment (OWTS)

systems (e.g., septic tank/leachfield systems) may result in the introduction of disease-causing

pathogenic organisms such as bacteria, parasitic cysts, and viruses (directly or indirectly through

soils) to creeks that drain to the Calaveras River, its tributaries, and reservoirs. Also of concern is

the risk of increased nutrient loading, particularly nitrogen, to the waterbodies which can

contribute to DBP production.

Sanitary sewer overflows often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic organisms,

nutrients, oxygen demanding organic compounds, oil and grease, and other wastes.

OWTSs can contribute to the contamination of groundwater. However, a greater risk in the

Calaveras River watershed is improperly located, designed, constructed, or maintained systems

proximate to surface waters. In addition to the pathogenic organisms and nutrient loading

discussed above, improperly functioning systems may contribute metals, pesticides, herbicides,

SOCs, and organic matter from leachfields due to improper disposal of household chemicals.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES Wastewater discharges are typically considered a point source discharge, permitted by CVRWQCB. If the effluent is discharged to surface water, the facility is subject to a NPDES permit. If

the effluent is discharged to land via ponds or sprayfields, it is regulated by WDR. Onsite

wastewater treatment systems, which are located throughout the watershed, are regulated by the

CVRWQCB and the county environmental health departments, as discussed in depth in this section

under Watershed Management. Figure 3-2 shows the location of surface water dischargers.

One wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), the San Andreas WWTP, holds a NPDES permit to

discharge to surface water (as well as land disposal). The San Andreas Wastewater Treatment Plant

listed in Table 3-10 is owned and operated by San Andreas Sanitary District. It serves a population

of approximately 2,200 residents in the community of San Andreas. Treatment facilities include a

grit removal chamber, mechanical screens for solids removal, parshall flume for flow metering, pre-

aeration basin, primary and secondary clarifiers, recirculating trickling filter, sodium hypochlorite

contact chamber, sodium bisulfite dechlorination unit, heated unmixed anaerobic digester, sludge

drying beds, three post-secondary effluent polishing ponds, and a six million gallon (mgal) effluent

storage reservoir.





Table 3-10: Surface Water WWTP Dischargers in Calaveras River Watershed

Facility Name Owner Community/Waterbody NPDES No.

San Andreas Wastewater

Treatment Plant

San Andreas Sanitary

District

San Andreas/Murray

Creek to North Fork

Calaveras River

CA0079464

Source: SWRCB, 2016e

Discharge to waterbodies is prohibited from May 1 through October 31. Surface drainage is to the

San Andreas and Murray creeks; however, the evaporation and percolation area drains to San

Andreas Creek only. San Andreas and Murray creeks are tributaries to the North Fork of the

Calaveras River. Effluent is land applied onto evaporation/percolation trenches from May 1 through

October 31 using a series of pipelines, evaporation, transpiration and percolation ditches after

wastewater has undergone tertiary treatment.

The WWTP has received 71 violations in the past five years. The majority of these violations were

for Category 2 pollutants such as copper, zinc, cyanide, and chlorine residual exceedances.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISCHARGERS – LAND DISPOSAL. Wastewater treatment plants that do not

dispose of the effluent to waterbodies typically use land disposal methods. These include spraying

fields, leachfields, holding ponds, and the reuse of tertiary treated wastewater in irrigation systems,

particularly golf courses. These facilities are required to comply with WDR orders and do not need

NPDES point discharge permits. The Calaveras River watershed facilities with WDR are listed in

Table 3-11; these facilities have been described in previous WSSs. Table 3-11 provides the number

and type of violations within the past five years. Most violations are Class III, such as late reporting,

which are considered to pose a minor threat. Sierra Ridge WWTP on Fricot City Road had numerous

total coliform, BOD, TOC, and TDS effluent exceedances. This facility drains to San Antonio Creek

below Sheep Ranch WTP and above the confluence with South Fork Calaveras River.

SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS. Potential causes of sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) include grease,

root, and debris blockages, sewer line flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump

station mechanical failures, power outages, storm or groundwater inflow/infiltration, lack of

capacity, and/or contractor causes blockages.

A record of SSO is maintained by the SWRCB. Overflows listed in individual SSO reports contain

data related on each incident where sewage is discharged from the sanitary sewer system due to a

failure (e.g., sewer pipe blockage or pump failure). Table 3-12 provides a summary of SSOs within

the watershed from 2011 to 2015.

ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS. Outside of the wastewater collection and treatment

systems described above, most of the residential and commercial uses in the watershed are on

onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), commonly called septic systems, with leachfields

and/or septic tanks. These smaller communities include: Milton, Jenny Lind, Rancho Calaveras,

Calaveritas, Mountain Ranch, Sheep Ranch, and Lakemont Pines, in addition to areas within Arnold,

La Contenta, and Valley Springs that are not on a collection system. The western County has had the

highest failure rates of septic systems, especially near Valley Springs and Rancho Calaveras.



Table 3-11: Land Disposal Dischargers in the Calaveras River Watershed

Facility Name Owner Violations1 Community WDR

Order

Big Trees County Houses

WWTP CCWD NA Camp Connell

R5-1994-

0357

Calaveras Big Trees State

Park Ca Dept Parks & Rec NA Arnold

R5-2006-

0043

Calaveras Timber Trails

WWTF

Calaveras Timber

Trails NA Avery 98-006

Camp Connell Maintenance

Station WWTF

Ca Dept of

Transportation DMON (5) Camp Connell 90-297

Gold Strike Village MHP Robert Bradley LREP (8) San Andreas 88-033

Jenny Lind Elementary School

Spray Fields

Calaveras Unified

School District

DMON (10) LREP

(7) OREQ (1) Jenny Lind 92-075

La Contenta WWTP & RF CCWD NA Valley Springs R5-2013-

0145

New Hogan WWTP USACOE LREP (3) OC (5) Valley Springs 98-075

Sierra Ridge WWTP Rite of Passage OC (17) San Andreas 01-056

Southworth Ranch Estates

WWTF CCWD

DMON (3) DR (3)

OC (1)

Valley

Springs/

Wallace

90-258

Toyon Middle School Ca Calaveras Unified

School District NA San Andreas 97-074

Valley Springs WWTF Valley Springs

Sanitary District NA Valley Springs

R5-2005-

0066 Source: CVRWQCB, 2016e. 1Violations Type (#of violations) within past five years: CAT1-Category 1 Pollutant; DMON-Deficient Monitoring; DR-

Deficient Reporting; LREP-Late Report; OC-Order Conditions; OEV-Other Effluent Violation; OREQ-Other Requirement.

NA-No violations

Table 3-12: Sanitary System Overflows in Collection Systems (2011 to 2015)

Agency/Collection System

Total

Number of

SSO Locations

Total Volume

of SSOs

(gallons)

Total Volume

Recovered

(gallons)

CCWD/Arnold CS 2 3,000 0

CCWD/La Contenta CS 1 85,000 84,500

CDPR/ Calaveras Big Trees State Park CS 5 9,255 4,149

San Andreas Sanitation District/San

Andreas CS 22 41,810 4,175

Valley Springs Sanitation District/Valley

Springs CS 1 100 0

Source: SWRCB, 2016c.

Engineered systems pump the liquids to an area with better drainage. As septic systems age, they

tend to fail more frequently. Properly operated systems can experience problems during prolonged

precipitation events. Of more concern is a plugged leachfield or tank or nonworking pump which



can send untreated sewage directly into a waterbody. Septic system siting can be problematic,

particularly in the higher elevations because there is less soil depth and less separation to

groundwater. Limestone and volcanic mudflow subsurface formations are problematic because of

the difficulty percolating.

The Calaveras County Environmental Health Department permits individual on-site sewage

disposal systems on parcels that have the area, soils, and other characteristics that permit

installation of such disposal facilities without threatening surface or groundwater quality. These

are only permitted where community sewer services are not available and cannot be provided.

There are currently no plans to replace septic systems with sewage collection service in the

watershed in the near future.


Federal and state laws protect water quality from wastewater discharges, as well as the point and

nonpoint sources. All treated wastewater in California that is reclaimed for reuse as recycled water

must comply with Title 22. On-site wastewater treatment systems are regulated by the SWRCB as

well as each county.

FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS FOR POINT AND NONPOINT WASTEWATER DISCHARGES. As discussed under

stormwater, the federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards and to

submit those standards for approval by the US EPA. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

is the principal state law governing water quality regulation in California. The Porter-Cologne Act

established a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water, and

established the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs which are charged with implementing its provisions, and

which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides

program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. The RWQCBs have

primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of

nine hydrologic regions. The Calaveras River falls under the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB.

The SWRCB and the RWQCBs preserve and enhance the quality of the State's waters through the

development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements. The

RWQCBs regulate point source discharges (i.e., discharges from a discrete conveyance) primarily

through issuance of NPDES and waste discharge requirement permits. NPDES permits serve as

waste discharge requirements for surface water discharges.

Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials to land in a manner that allows infiltration

into soil and percolation to groundwater (other than to a community sanitary sewer system

regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge to the local RWQCB (or receive

a waiver). Following receipt of a report of waste discharge, the RWQCB issues WDRs that prescribe

how the discharge is to be managed.

An NPDES permit is required for municipal, industrial, and construction discharges of wastes to

surface waters. Typically, NPDES permits are issued for a five-year term, and they are generally

issued by the RWQCBs. An individual permit (i.e., covering one facility) is tailored for a specific

discharge, based on information contained in the application (e.g., type of activity, nature of

discharge, and receiving water quality). A general permit is developed and issued to cover multiple

facilities within a specific category.



The beneficial uses and receiving water objectives to protect those uses are established in the

Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, known as the

Basin Plan. The CVRWQCB establishes effluent limitations for wastewater dischargers based on the

beneficial uses and the receiving water body’s water quality objectives. Effluent limitations are specific to each discharge and vary throughout the Central Valley. If a discharge is to an ephemeral

stream or a stream that the CVRWQCB determines does not have any assimilative capacity for a contaminant, the discharger’s effluent must meet the receiving water quality objectives. If the receiving water has dilution capacity available, the CVRWQCB establishes effluent limitations that

allow for a mixing zone and effluent dilution in the receiving water. The CVRWQCB establishes

effluent limits for several contaminants in waste discharge permits. However, the Basin Plan does

not contain water quality objectives for key drinking water constituents of concern (e.g.,

disinfection byproduct precursors, pathogens, and nutrients) or the current objectives are not

based on drinking water concerns (salinity, chloride). Therefore, current reporting provides limited

effluent quality data for many such constituents because the dischargers are not required to

conduct monitoring.

STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS. The SWRCB adopted

Resolution 2012-0032 setting policy for the siting, design, operation, and maintenance of OWTS

(AB 885). The OWTS Policy sets standards for OWTS that are constructed or replaced, that are

subject to a major repair, that pool or discharge waste to the surface of the ground, and that have

affected, or will affect, groundwater or surface water to a degree that makes it unfit for drinking

water or other uses, or cause a health or other public nuisance condition. The OWTS Policy also

includes minimum operating requirements for OWTS that may include siting, construction, and

performance requirements; requirements for OWTS near certain waters listed as impaired under

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; requirements authorizing local agency implementation of

the requirements; corrective action requirements; minimum monitoring requirements; exemption

criteria; requirements for determining when an existing OWTS is subject to major repair, and a

conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements (SWRCB, 2016d). The regulations allow local

control over managing the systems and provide some funding for low interest loans to property

owners needing help to meet the requirements. If the current OWTS is in good operating condition and is not near an impaired water body , the policy has little effect on property owners. Woods Creek east of Columbia in Tuolumne County is the only impaired waterbody on the OWTS policy

list; it drains to the Tuolumne River.

The Calaveras County Environmental Health Department is working on a Local Area Management

Plan to comply with the implementation of OWTS policies and regulations. The Calaveras County

Draft General Plan specifies new development of one dwelling unit per one acre-plus (no denser)

are allowed to have an OWTS, if feasible. Higher densities must be connected to public sewage

collection systems (Calaveras County, 2014). Calaveras County does not require that a septic

system be inspected during the sale of a property. However, most lending institutions require that a

septic system be pumped out and inspected to obtain a mortgage.

WILDFIRES

CONCERN

Wildfires result in a loss of surface cover and forest duff, such as needles and small branches, which

exposes soil to the direct impact of raindrops, which then reduces the infiltration capacity of the



soils, increasing runoff. With the loss of vegetation, rainfall does not collect and run off along

established depressions, but it dissipates rapidly as sheet flow. In addition, fires in chaparral

vegetation can produce hydrophobic soils. Hydrophobic soils decrease permeability of soils and

increase runoff. Wildfires contribute large loadings of sediment and organic matter in surface

runoff to waterbodies during the rainy seasons following the fire. Sediment is a major carrier and

catalyst for pesticides, organic residues, nutrients, and pathogenic organisms. Fire derived ash can

increase pH, alkalinity, and nutrients. The increase in turbidity at the treatment plants from fine

particles which have not settled to the bottom of waterways during transport result in increased

treatment operations (e.g., more filter backwashing, higher disinfectant dosages), increased

likelihood of TTHMs and other DBPs generated, and a greater level of risk of pathogens slipping

through the treatment process. Nutrient loads into water bodies, particularly phosphorus and

nitrogen, have also been reported to increase after wildfires.

In addition, water yields can be drastically impacted. Immediately following large fire events, runoff

peaks can increase significantly and can occur much earlier. Future overall yields can be lower,

depending on the nature of the fire and watershed characteristics. At moderately high altitudes, this

occurs because snowmelt is greatly accelerated due to the removal or reduction of shade. It is

released too rapidly to be stored in the soil, meadows, or in reservoirs. Post fire logging practices

can impact water quality through the application of herbicides to control brush and log removal

increasing erosion.


According to CAL FIRE, the area features a range of challenging topography, fuels, and weather. An

expanding population increases the potential for large and damaging fires. The grasslands of the

rolling western plains routinely experience extreme summer heat, and significant wind events

during spring and fall months. The brush fields lay over broad expanses of steep hillsides and atop

narrow ridgelines between deepening river canyons, with topography making access difficult. The

brush transitions into mixed oak and conifer zones as the elevation increases and the canyon depth

and width increase with high hazard brush and timber fuels. This mid-elevation area also

experiences high summer temperatures and is most affected by normal diurnal winds associated

with the canyon topography. The higher elevation zone features dense stands of conifer timber,

with accumulations of ground and ladder fuels. Temperatures are routinely moderated due to the

elevation, however, wind events in the fall can contribute to challenging fire conditions (CAL FIRE,

2014).

A recent concern is the increase in tree mortality rates due in part to the current ongoing drought

and bark beetle infestation. Dead and dying trees raise the risk of faster moving and more intense

forest fires. In particular, Ponderosa, Pinyon, and sugar pines (Sacramento Bee, 2016).

All of Calaveras County is designated as having a very high fire risk rating. Volunteer fire

departments, special districts, county agencies, state agencies, and federal agencies provide fire

protection services in Calaveras County. Eleven fire protection districts, a public utility district, one

city fire department, and the Calaveras County Fire Department are organized to fight fires in the

county. Calaveras County has agreements with seven of the fire protection districts in which an

exchange of services, emergency response, and financial support is delineated. CAL FIRE and the

Forest Service are responsible for and provide wildland fire protection within their jurisdictions,

which together encompass virtually all of Calaveras County, excepting the City of Angels and part of

the San Andreas Fire Protection District.



Table 3-13 lists fires that have occurred in the watershed in the last five years from CAL FIRE

incident reports. The tributary or reservoir downstream of the fire burn area is estimated. The Butte fire in was one of the most damaging fires in California’s history. The 70,868 acres

burned surrounding Mountain Ranch included 921 structure destroyed (i.e., 549 homes, 368

outbuildings and 4 commercial properties) and 44 structures damaged. Two citizens were killed

and one injured. Thirteen agencies cooperated to control the fire. As of this date, it is believed to

have been started by power utility crews removing trees near utility poles, weakening support for a

tree which then fell onto electrical wires. Figure 3-3 presents the extent of the Butte fire in relation

to the WTPs.

Table 3-13: Fires in Calaveras River Watershed (2011 to 2015)

Year Fire Name Tributary/Reservoir Contained Acres

2015 Butte Fire San Antonio Creek to New Hogan September 9 70,868

2014 Oak Fire Bear Creek to New Hogan June 22 85

2014 Reed Fire Bear Creek to New Hogan June 20 120

2012 Michal Fire Willow Creek to South Fork

Calaveras September 11 23

2012 Salt Fire Salt Spring Valley Reservoir September 5 84

2012 Paloma Fire New Hogan May 31 37

2011 Tuolumne-Calaveras Wind

Event Multiple locations December 6 781

2011 TCU September Lightning Multiple locations September 9 1,135

2011 Freccero Fire Calavaritas Creek September 7 57

2011 Murray Fire San Andreas Creek to South Fork

Calaveras July 25 83

Source: CAL FIRE Incident Report (CAL FIRE, 2016a). Tributary/reservoirs were identified from aerial photographs

and are approximate.


Areas of the state are designed as State Responsibility Areas (CAL FIRE is the primary responder for

nonstructural fires outside of Forest Service land), Federal Responsibility Areas (Forest Service has

primary jurisdiction for fires in the Stanislaus National Forest), or Local Responsibility Areas

(county or city fire departments have primary jurisdiction).

Calaveras County Fire and Emergency Services is the primary responder for structure fires, unless a

community has a fire agency. Calaveras Consolidated Fire Protection District is the principle fire

agency in the western portion of the county serving the communities of Valley Springs, Milton,

Rancho Calaveras, La Contenta, and Jenny Lind within the watershed. Central Calaveras Fire District

is a primarily volunteer department with limited paid staff serving the communities of Glencoe,

Mountain Ranch, and Sheep Ranch within the watershed. San Andreas Fire Protection District

serves the San Andreas community and vicinity.

In 2014 the CAL FIRE Tuolumne Calaveras Unit updated its Pre-Fire Management Plan. The report

includes assessment summaries of each battalion in the region including a discussion of assets at

risk, fuels and weather, and management activities undertaken by the unit to prevent fire damage

to the area (CALFIRE, 2014). Coordination of fuel reduction efforts in the Calaveras District of the



Stanislaus National Forest continues to be a high priority because several large subdivisions within

the greater Arnold area are immediately adjacent to USFS lands. The CAL FIRE Emergency

Watershed Protection and the Forest Service Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation teams begin

rehabilitation evaluations once a fire is contained. The teams review both the suppression impacts,

such as the fire lines constructed by hand crews and dozers, and the fire impacts to determine the

extent of repair and rehabilitation needed. After a wildland fire, CAL FIRE assists with

hydroseeding, mulching, and other slope stabilization techniques. CAL FIRE attempts to restore the

disturbed area. Erosion mitigation response conducted after a wildfire depends on how much

vegetation was removed, soil type, steepness of slope, and other factors.



WILDLIFE

CONCERN

Wild animal populations may be a potential threat to water quality, because they may contribute

pathogenic organisms such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, bacteria, and viruses to the water

supply. Wild animals congregate near bodies of water, similar to domestic animals, and can

contribute to increased nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), microorganisms (bacteria, viruses,

and protozoa), and increased erosion of sediment from compaction and disturbance of soils. Birds,

in particular, can be a significant source of pathogens to waterbodies because of the direct nature of

their deposits, and a tendency to roost in large numbers on water surfaces, and if there is a large

year round population as opposed to migratory population. The more expensive testing required to

determine whether detected coliform levels are from human or animal sources is usually not

conducted.


The grasslands of the watershed provide productive habitat for hundreds of vertebrate and

invertebrate species while the woodland vegetation supports a wide variety of game species.

Common bird species include acorn woodpeckers, common crows, California quail, doves, hawks,

and eagles. Mammals include bats, gray foxes, coyotes, deer, raccoons, and rodents. Squirrels, deer

mice, voles and pocket gophers can be found in the grasslands.

Mammals include foxes, coyotes, deer, raccoons, bear, mountain lion, bobcat, wild boar, squirrel,

and rabbit. Deer are the most prevalent large mammal. In Calaveras County there are resident deer

and migratory deer that move from its winter range in central Calaveras County to its summer

range in Alpine County; Mountain Ranch is in a migration zone. Raccoons, skunks, opossums,

weasels, muskrats and black-tailed deer favor the riparian corridors. In the forested lands of the

upper watershed, habitat supports wildlife such as bears, martens, gray foxes, mountain lions,

weasels, coyotes, spotted skunks, flying and gray squirrels, opossums, ringtail cats, and other

species.

New Hogan Reservoir is home to fox, blacktail deer, coyote, turkey, mountain lion, bobcat, and

wintering home for bald eagles (USACOE, 2016). Visitors to Calaveras Big Trees State Park have

observed raccoon, fox, porcupine, chipmunk, flying squirrel, black bear, bobcat, and coyote.

Waterfowl at reservoirs is of particular concern. Canada geese are becoming resident (non-

migratory) and a single goose can defecate up to 1.5 pounds per day. Their fecal matter may

contribute pathogens and nutrients. Boating on the reservoir and seasonal mixing can stir up

settled fecal deposits.


Watershed management of wild animals occurs through the California Department of Fish and

Wildlife, county animal control officers, and Forest Service. The presence of wildlife are a high risk

to water quality because they difficult to manage to prevent contamination of drinking water

supplies.

Managing Canada geese is difficult because there are federal protections. Border collies are

effective in chasing geese as a management control but are not a practical solution. Signage

discouraging people from feeding them aids in educating the public about the problem. Replanting

grass areas with tall fescue or ground covers reduces their food source while studies have shown



that geese were less likely to walk to food that was placed beyond 39 yards from the water line. In

addition, increasing bank slope or placing large stones around the banks reduces the attraction

(ICWDM, 2015).

GROWTH AND URBANIZATION

The majority of the Calaveras River watershed is sparsely populated, with several small towns

located near historical mining or agricultural areas. The Calaveras River watershed includes no

incorporated cities. Population estimates for the previous five years are provided in Table 3-14.

These recent population estimates from the California State Department of Finance report the

population of Calaveras County as approximately 44,900, a 1.2 percent decrease from 2011 (CDOF,

2015).

Table 3-14 Population of Calaveras County

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Percent Change

2011 to 2015

Calaveras 45,414 45,305 45,116 45,010 44,881 -1.2

Source: DOF, 2015

The draft Calaveras County General Plan indicates that its population is expected to increase to

54,912 by 2035. Development potential of vacant parcels could yield a maximum of 51,688 new

dwelling units plus 3,810 units that have previously been approved but are undeveloped near

Copperopolis. However, according to the County, a more likely buildout scenario is approximately

23,000 new units. At the current 2.41 people per household, over 56,000 new residents may be

accommodated in the county (Calaveras County, 2015c).

In 2006, in partnership with local governments and organizations in Amador County and Calaveras

County, Local Government Commission, a non-governmental organization, conducted a watershed

planning project with communities in the two counties (e.g., the Upper Mokelumne Watershed

Council, CCWD, the Angels Camp City Council, the Foothill Conservancy, MyValleySprings.com, and

the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Council). The goal was to support integration of

stormwater management and watershed planning into the updated general plan and policy

documents. The strategy is to better align land use planning with water resource planning and

provide the analysis, policy recommendations, and tools and resources necessary to implement

watershed-based planning strategies. The most important recommendation of the report is for the

counties to improve the pattern and character of development in the region to better protect and

manage water resources. (LGC, 2008)

SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY


This section presents a review of available water quality data. Section 4 is organized as follows.

Review of drinking water regulations with a focus on the Surface Water Treatment Rule

(SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), and the Long Term 2

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR).

Water quality data for the study period 2011 through 2015 are presented for each of the

participating public water systems.

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1974. The

SDWA authorized the US EPA to set standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. The

SDWA was amended in 1986 and again in 1996. Under the SDWA, states are given primacy to adopt

and implement drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than the federal regulations

and to enforce those regulations. For California, the DDW is the primacy agency with this authority.

SURFACE WATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) was promulgated in 1989 to control the levels of

turbidity, Giardia lamblia, viruses, Legionella, and heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria.

Compliance with the SWTR is demonstrated by meeting specific turbidity and disinfection

performance requirements. Surface water treatment plants are required to achieve 3-log (99.9

percent) reduction of Giardia and 4-log (99.99 percent) reduction of viruses. A conventional

filtration plant in compliance with the turbidity performance standards is given credit for physical

removal of 2.5 logs Giardia and 2.0 log virus. The additional 0.5-log Giardia reduction and 2-log

virus reduction must be achieved through disinfection. A direct filtration plant in compliance with

the turbidity performance standards is given credit for physical removal of 2 logs Giardia and 1 log

virus. The additional 1 log Giardia reduction and 3-log virus reduction must be achieved through

disinfection. Compliance with the disinfection requirements is demonstrated by monitoring CT

where C is the concentration of disinfectant and T is the contact time for the disinfectant, and CT is

the product of the two. The calculated CT is compared to CT values required to achieve a certain log

inactivation credit.

Beyond the minimum SWTR requirements described above, DDW staff can impose additional

treatment requirements (via the permit process) when the quality of the raw water poses higher

microbial risk according to the criteria presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Coliform Triggers for Increased Giardia and Virus Reduction

Median Monthly Total

Coliform MPN/100 mL

Giardia Cyst Treatment

Requirement

Virus Treatment

Requirement

<1000 3 4

>1000 – 10,000 4 5

>10,000 – 100,000 5 6

EPA promulgated the IESWTR in 1998 (effective in California in January 2008). The IESWTR

applied to surface water systems (and groundwater under the direct influence of surface water)



serving greater than 10,000 population. The IESWTR lowered the turbidity performance

requirement in the 1989 SWTR for the combined filter effluent from 0.5 NTU to 0.3 NTU for

conventional and direct filtration plants, and required that utilities monitor and record the

turbidity for individual filters. In addition, the IESWTR added (1) a requirement that utilities

achieve 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium, with compliance demonstrated by meeting the turbidity

performance requirement, (2) requirements for disinfection profiling and benchmarking, and (3) a

requirement that all new finished water storage facilities be covered.

In January 2002 EPA published the final Long-term 1 ESWTR (LT1ESWTR). The LT1ESWTR

applied the requirements of the IESWTR to systems serving less than 10,000 population. The

LT1ESWTR went into effect in California in July 2013.

The LT2ESWTR was promulgated in January 2006 and was effective in California in July 2013. The

LT2ESWTR required 2 years of monthly source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Depending

upon the concentration of Cryptosporidium, utilities were placed into one of four bins, which

corresponded to levels of risk. Table 4-2 presents the schedule for the initial round of source water

Cryptosporidium monitoring.

Table 4-2: LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring Schedule

Population Served

≥ 100,000 50,000 to

99,999

10,000 to

49,999

< 10,000*

Begin first round of

source water

monitoring

October

2006

April

2007

April

2008

October

2008

Submit Bin

Classification

March

2009

September

2009

September

2010

September

2012

Begin second round of

source water

monitoring

April

2015

October

2015

October

2016

April

2019

*Required to monitor every two weeks for E. coli, results may trigger

Cryptosporidium monitoring.

Table 4-3 presents the various bin classifications adopted in the LT2ESWTR. If the monitoring

results indicated placement in Bin 1, no additional treatment for Cryptosporidium was required

beyond the 2-log removal credit given to plants that meet the turbidity removal requirements.

Placement in Bins 2 through 4 required increasing levels of Cryptosporidium reduction. EPA

developed a microbial toolbox that assigned credit for Cryptosporidium reduction for various

treatment options.



Table 4-3: LT2ESWTR Bin Classification

Cryptosporidium

Concentration (oocysts/L)

Bin

Classification

Additional Treatment Required

for Conventional Filtration Plan*

<0.075 1 No additional treatment

>0.075 and <1.0 2 1 log treatment

>1.0 and <3.0 3 2 log treatment**

>3.0 4 2.5 log treatment** *Using any technology or combination of technologies from microbial toolbox.

** At least 1 log must be achieved using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV light, membranes, bag/cartridge filters, or bank filtration.

The LT2ESWTR requires that utilities conduct a second round of source water monitoring 6 years

after completing the initial monitoring. The second round of source water monitoring for Schedule

1 systems (>100,000 population) began in April 2015. A system is exempt from the source water

Cryptosporidium monitoring if it provides at least 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment.

REGULATION OF DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS (DBPS)

DBPs have been regulated since the adoption of the 1979 trihalomethane (TTHM) standard. In

1998, EPA promulgated the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products (D/DBP) Rule, which

lowered the MCL for TTHMs from 0.10 mg/L to 0.080 mg/L, and established new MCLs for

haloacetic acids (HAA5) at 0.060 mg/L, bromate at 0.010 mg/L (for systems using ozone), and

chlorite at 1.0 mg/L (for systems using chlorine dioxide). The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule also established

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels (MRDLs) for disinfectants including chlorine, chloramines,

and chlorine dioxide, and included requirements for enhanced coagulation for the removal of natural organic matter in surface water filtration plants that use conventional treatment.

Compliance with the enhanced coagulation requirement is met by achieving specific levels of Total

Organic Carbon (TOC) removal for a given raw water quality.

To determine compliance with the enhanced coagulation requirements, each monthly set of paired

TOC samples (raw water and combined filter effluent) is used to determine the removal percentage

achieved, as follows:

100TOCWaterRaw

TOCWaterTreated-TOC Water RawAchievedRemovalTOC

The required TOC removal varies with the quality of the source water, as shown in Table 4-4.



Table 4-4: Step 1 TOC Removal Requirements

Source Water

TOC (mg/L)

Source Water Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

0 to 60 >60 to 120 >120

>2.0 to 4.0 35% 25% 15%

>4.0 to 8.0 45% 35% 25%

>8.0 50% 40% 30%

After determining the TOC removal achieved and finding the Step 1 TOC removal required from

Table 4-4, the compliance ratio is calculated as follows:

RequiredRemovalTOCAchievedRemovalTOC

RatioCompliance

Each month, a compliance ratio is determined. Each month’s compliance ratio is averaged with the compliance ratios for the previous 11 months to calculate a rolling 12-month average. If the rolling

12-month average of compliance ratios is 1.0 or greater, the requirement is met. This calculation

must be done each quarter. There are alternative compliance criteria which can be used to exempt a system from the DBP precursor treatment technique requirements. In any month that one or more of the following six

conditions are met, a monthly compliance ratio value of 1.0 can be assigned (in lieu of the value

calculated above) when determining compliance.

1. The source water TOC is <2.0 mg/L.

2. The treated water TOC is <2.0 mg/L.

3. The source water Specific UV Absorbance (SUVA), prior to any treatment, is 2.0 L/mg-m.

4. The treated water SUVA is 2.0 L/mg-m.

5. The raw water TOC is <4.0 mg/L, the raw water alkalinity is >60 mg/L (as CaCO3), the

TTHMs are <40 µg/L and the HAA5 is <30 µg/L.

6. The TTHMs are <40 µg/L and the HAA5 is <30 µg/L with only chlorine for disinfection.

Both source water and treated water SUVA must be measured upstream of any oxidant addition,

including chlorine. Further, both UV-254 and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) used in the SUVA

calculation are measured after the water has been filtered through 0.45-µm filter paper. If the system cannot meet the Step TOC removal levels, the system can apply to DDW for a Step alternative TOC removal requirement. The Step application must be made within three months

of determining that Step 1 removals cannot be achieved.



In its application for the Step alternate TOC removal, the system must provide data from bench or pilot testing. The Step 2 removal requirements are determined as follows:

1. Bench- or pilot-scale testing of enhanced coagulation is conducted using representative

water samples and adding 10 mg/L increments of alum (or 5.4 mg/L of ferric chloride) until

the pH is reduced to a level less than or equal to the Step 2 target pH values shown in Table

4-5.

Table 4-5: Step 2 Enhanced Coagulation Target pH Values

Raw Water Alkalinity

(mg/L as CaCO3)

Target pH

0 to 60 5.5

>60 to 120 6.3

>120 to 240 7.0

>240 7.5

2. The Step 2 dose is the least of the following two doses:

a. The dose resulting in the Step 2 target pH value shown in Table 4-5, or

b. The dose above which the next higher dose results in less than 0.3 mg/L of

additional TOC removal (this is called the Point of Diminishing Returns).

3. The percent TOC removal achieved with the Step 2 dose is then defined as the minimum

TOC removal required by the plant.

4. Once approved by DDW, this Step 2 TOC removal requirement supersedes the minimum

TOC removal requirement (Step 1) shown in Table 4- 5.

5. If no incremental increase of 10 mg/L alum (or 5.4 mg/L ferric chloride) results in greater

than 0.3 mg/L incremental TOC removal, then the water is deemed to contain TOC not

amenable to enhanced coagulation. Under those conditions, the system may apply to DDW

for a waiver of enhanced coagulation requirements.

On January 4, 2006, EPA promulgated the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule (effective in California in June 2012).

The Stage 2 D/DBP Rule did not change the MCLs, the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels

(MRDLs), or the enhanced coagulation requirements from the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule. However, it did

change the manner in which compliance with the MCLs for TTHMs and HAA5 is determined,

requiring compliance at each sampling location rather than across the entire distribution system.

The Rule contained a new requirement where systems conducted an Initial Distribution System

Evaluation that would be used to identify sample locations anticipated to produce higher levels of

DBPs.

REVISED TOTAL COLIFORM RULE (TCR)

In February 2013 EPA published the final Revised TCR. Compliance monitoring under the Revised

TCR began April 1, 2016.

The Revised TCR contains the following elements:



1. Eliminates the MCL for coliform bacteria (but systems continue to monitor for the presence

of coliform bacteria).

2. MCL compliance to be based on presence/absence of E. coli.

3. The presence of total coliform and E. coli trigger investigations, referred to as Level 1 and Level Assessments as described below , for potential sanitary defects in the distribution system.

4. No changes to the current approved analytical methods.

5. No changes in the number of samples required each month and no changes are made to the

requirement to collect a set of 3-repeat samples for any routine sample that is coliform

positive.

Figure 4-1 presents a flow chart that summarizes the requirements of the Revised TCR. The

sections following the flowchart present a brief description of these requirements.



Figure 4-1 Flow Chart for Revised Total Coliform Rule

Start Decision

Tree Here

TC-

Routine TCR Monitoring

TC+ / EC- TC+ / EC+

Collect 3 repeat samples within 24 hours and

proceed under TCR and collect any triggered

samples at wells under GWR

Collect 3 repeat samples within 24 hours and

proceed under TCR and collect any triggered

samples at wells under GWR

Any repeat sample TC+ / EC+ ?

>5% samples in month positive coliform ?

Any repeat sample TC+ / EC+ ?

Level 1 Assessment

Any repeat sample TC+ / EC- ?

Any repeat sample TC+ / EC- ?

TCR MCL Violation.Public Notification – 24

hours. May require boil water notice.

Level 2 Assessment

Two level 1 assessments in 12

months ?

Yes

No

Yes

No

NoYes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No



DETERMINING COMPLIANCE UNDER THE REVISED TCR. Under the revised TCR the following conditions

will be considered a violation of the MCL for E. coli:

1. The system has an E. coli positive repeat sample following a total coliform-positive routine

sample.

2. The system has a total coliform-positive repeat sample following an E. coli-positive routine

sample.

3. The system fails to collect all required repeat samples following an E. coli positive routine

sample.

4. The system fails to test for E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for total coliform.

LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT. The objective of a Level 1 assessment is to identify the possible presence of

sanitary defects in the distribution system. A sanitary defect is defined as a defect that could

provide a pathway of entry for microbial contamination into the distribution system or that is

indicative of a failure or imminent failure in a sanitary barrier already in place.

A Level 1 assessment is triggered when there are more than 5 percent total coliform positive

samples in a given month (for a system collecting 40 or more samples per month). For systems

collecting less than 40 coliform samples per month, the Level 1 Assessment is triggered in any

month when there is more than one positive Total Coliform result. A Level 1 assessment is also required if a system does not collect all of the required repeat samples in a given month. A Level 1 assessment can be conducted by utility staff (i.e., it does not have to be conducted by a

third party). At a minimum the Level 1 Assessment is to include the following:

Review and identification of inadequacies in sample sites, sampling protocol and sample

processing,

Review of atypical events that could affect or impair distribution system water quality,

Review of any changes in distribution system maintenance and operation (including storage

facilities) that could impact distribution system water quality, and

Review of source and treatment considerations that could affect distribution system water

quality.

Within 30 days of learning that it has exceeded the trigger to conduct a Level 1 assessment, the

system must complete and submit a Level 1 Assessment report to DDW. The report is to include (1)

a description of any identified sanitary defects (or none detected if that is the case), (2) the

corrective actions completed and (3) if necessary, a proposed timetable for corrective actions that

were not completed within the 30-day timeframe.

LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENT. A Level 2 Assessment is triggered when there is a violation of the E. coli MCL.

A Level 2 Assessment is also required if a system has needed to conduct two Level 1 Assessments

within a rolling 12-month time frame (however, if DDW determines that the cause of the positive

samples that triggered the Level 1 Assessments were identified and the sanitary defect(s) were

corrected, then DDW can determine that a Level 2 Assessment is not needed).



A Level 2 Assessment is intended to provide a more detailed review than a Level 1 Assessment. At a

minimum a Level 2 Assessment is to evaluate atypical events that could impact water quality.

These events are described in the Revised TCR as (1) changes in distribution system maintenance

and operation procedures, (2) changes in source water and/or treatment, and (3) any changes in

sampling locations, sample collection and processing/handling of samples that may have

contributed to the Level 2 trigger. States can develop their own requirements for a Level 2

Assessment based on system size, type, and characteristics.

FAILURE TO CONDUCT A REQUIRED ASSESSMENT. A system that exceeds the trigger to conduct an

assessment, but fails to conduct the required Level 1 or Level 2 assessment is in violation of the

treatment technique provisions of the Revised TCR (RTCR) (this would require public notification).

Furthermore, a system that fails to correct sanitary defects identified in either assessment is also in

violation of the Revised TCR.

RTCR IMPLEMENTATION IN CALIFORNIA AS OF APRIL 2016. As of April 2016 California had not yet

proposed (nor adopted) regulations to implement the federal RTCR. DDW posted the following

statement on its web site.

“Beginning April , , all public water systems will need to comply with California’s existing Total Coliform Rule and the new requirements in the federal rTCR, until California can complete the regulatory adoption process for the rTCR.

Additional information, including Level 1 Assessment forms, is posted on the DDW website at the

following location.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/rtcr.shtml

ADDITIONAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

In addition to the regulations described above, EPA and DDW have established health-based

regulations for a number of inorganic chemicals (metals, minerals), organic chemicals (volatile and

synthetic organic chemicals), radionuclides (man-made and naturally occurring), and non-health

based secondary standards for constituents that can impact the taste, odor, and/or color of drinking

water.

FUTURE DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

The following presents a discussion of various activity related to future drinking water regulations

within the next five year period.

CONTAMINANT CANDIDATE LIST. Every five years, EPA is required to publish a list of currently unregulated contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or promulgated NPDWRs [National Primary Drinking Water Regulation], are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and may require regulation under the SDWA (referred to as the Contaminant Candidate List or

CCL). Every five years, EPA is also required to determine whether or not to regulate at least five

contaminants from the CCL.

CCL3. The third CCL (CCL3) was published in 2009. In October 2014, US EPA published

Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for five contaminants from CCL3. The five contaminants

are: strontium, 1,3-dinitrobenzene (industrial chemical, byproduct from manufacture of

munitions), dimethoate (organophosphate pesticide), terbufos (organophosphate pesticide) and

terbufos sulfone (terbufos degradation product). EPA intends to regulate strontium, but does not

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/rtcr.shtml



intend to regulate the other four contaminants. In January 2016, US EPA published a notice in the

Federal Register with a final decision not to regulate 1,3-dinitrobenzene, dimethoate, terbufos and

terbufos sulfone. US EPA delayed a final decision on regulating strontium to consider additional data and decide whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction by regulating strontium in drinking water. In February , EPA published for public comment, a draft of the fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL4) containing 100 chemical constituents and 12 microbial

entities.

UCMR. In 2012, EPA published the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3).

Utilities conducted one-year of monitoring in the period of 2013 – 2015 for 30 contaminants. The

UCMR monitoring program develops occurrence information for unregulated contaminants (from

the CCLs) that may require regulation in the future. In December 2015, EPA published for public

comment the UCMR4 (the deadline for submitting public comments was February 9, 2016).

Included in the proposed UCMR4 were cyanotoxins, metals, pesticides, brominated haloacetic acids,

alcohols, and semivolatile organic chemicals.

CYANOBACTERIA. Cyanobacteria (also known as blue green algae) occur throughout the world. Some

species of cyanobacteria can produce toxins. Factors that affect cyanobacteria blooms include light

intensity, sunlight duration, nutrient availability, water temperature, pH and water stability. In August , Toledo, Ohio issued a Do Not Drink order to approximately , residents due to the presence of an algal toxin, microcystin, in drinking water. During this event, Toledo and Ohio

EPA used the World Health Organization (WHO) guidance of 1 µg/L for microcystin as the trigger to issue the Do Not Drink order. On August , , at the start of the event, the raw water concentration of microcystin was 14 µg/L and the treated water concentration was 2.5 µg/L. In

response to the event, Toledo staff operating the Collins Park Water Treatment Plant (a

conventional treatment plant), increased the chlorine dose from 2.2 mg/L to 2.7 mg/L, and

increased the PAC dose from 6.3 mg/L to 15 mg/L. On August 4, 2014, the concentration of

microcystin in drinking water was below µg/L and the Do Not Use order was lifted. On May 11, 2015 EPA held a public meeting on cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins. The EPA presented

10-day Health Advisories (HA) for two cyanotoxins: microcystin and cylindrospermopsin presented

in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6: EPA 10-day HA Values (µg/L)

Algal Toxin 10-Day HA

<6 years of Age

10-Day HA

>6 Years of Age Health Effect

Microcystin 0.3 1.6 Liver Toxicity

Cylindrospermopsin 0.7 3 Liver & Kidney Toxicity

EPA released the 10-day HAs in June . At the same time the EPA released a Health Effects Support Document for anatoxin-a. The HA documents include the following information.

Information on sources, occurrence, and environmental fate

Summary of available health effects information



Calculation of the Health Advisories

Recommended analytical methods

Review of treatment technology

EPA staff described the 10-day HAs as the concentration in drinking at or below which no adverse non-carcinogenic effects are expected for a ten-day exposure. Given the nationwide interest in the issue of algal toxins, a single confirmed positive measurement in finished water above one of the

infant HA values may trigger DDW to require public notification and/or modification of treatment.

SIX-YEAR REVIEW OF REGULATIONS. The SDWA requires that every six years, EPA review primary

drinking water regulations to determine whether they should be revised. The next six-year review

is scheduled to be published in 2016. EPA indicated that as part of this six-year review process,

they will include disinfection by-products. EPA will include chlorate and nitrosamines in this six-

year review, and will evaluate whether they should be regulated under the SDWA.

LONG-TERM REVISIONS TO THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE (LCR). The National Drinking Water Advisory

Council (NDWAC) formed an LCR Working Group to assist EPA with developing recommendations

for long-term revisions to the LCR. The NDWAC LCR Working Group began meeting in March 2014

and in August 2015 published a final report with their recommendations. The LCR Working Group

recommended changes addressed the following.

Lead service line replacement

Move to a volunteer home tap sampling program

Development of a Household Action Level for lead

Increased public outreach

Separate the copper requirements from lead

REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY DATA

There are two public water agencies (SEWD and CCWD) participating in this watershed sanitary

survey update of the Calaveras River watershed. Raw water and treated water quality data were

collected for the study period 2011 through 2015 and are summarized here.

SHEEP RANCH WTP

The source water for the Sheep Ranch WTP is White Pines Lake via San Antonio Creek. White Pines

Lake is owned and operated by CCWD. The lake is used for raw water supply, flood control, and

recreation (fishing, hiking, picnics).

Treatment processes at the Sheep Ranch WTP include sodium hypochlorite addition to the raw

water followed by addition of a polyaluminum chloride/cationic polymer blend to the raw water.

Mixing is achieved with a static mixer. The water then flows through a pressure dual-media filter.

Sodium hypochlorite is added to the filtered water and the water flows to a 78,000 gallon clearwell.

When turbidity reaches 10 NTU, the WTP triggers a forced shut down. The clearwell can provide a

5 -10 day supply of drinking water.



SHEEP RANCH WTP RAW WATER QUALITY. Figure 4-2 presents weekly total coliform results for the

influent to Sheep Ranch WTP. During 2011 through 2015, the total coliform results ranged from

ND to >2,419 MPN/100 mL, with an average of 474 MPN/100 mL. Figure 4-3 presents the weekly

E. coli results. The results ranged from ND to >2,400 MPN/100 mL, with an average of 45 MPN/100

mL. There were a total of 254 raw water bacteriological samples collected during 2011 – 2015.

Thirty-eight samples had a total coliform result greater than 1,000 MPN/100 mL. Five samples had

an E. coli result of 200 MPN/100 mL or greater and 17 samples had a result of 100 MPN/100 mL or

greater.

Figure 4-2 Sheep Ranch Total Coliforms (2011-2015)

Figure 4-3 Sheep Ranch E. coli (2011-2015)

Figure 4-4 presents raw water turbidity results for Sheep Ranch WTP. While the frequency can

vary, in general turbidity is measured three days per week. The range of turbidity results was <0.1

NTU to 31 NTU, with an average of 1.6 NTU. During the study period of 2011 through 2015

turbidity was recorded at 10 NTU or greater on four separate days (10 NTU or greater triggers an

automatic shut down of the WTP). Figure 4-5 presents the pH results during 2011 through 2015.

The pH results ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 8.5, with an average pH of 7.

Figure 4-4 Sheep Ranch Turbidity (2011-2015)

Figure 4-5 Sheep Ranch pH (2011-2015)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Tota

l Co

lifo

rm (

MP

N/1

00

mL)

Sheep Ranch Raw Water Total Coliforms

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

E. c

oli

(MP

N/1

00

mL)

Sheep Ranch Raw Water E. coli**E. coli results of 1,600 MPN/100 mL on September 14, 2011

>2,400 MPN/100 mL on October 5, 2011 not included in figure.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Turb

idit

y (N

TU

)

Sheep Ranch Raw Water Turbidity

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

pH

Sheep Ranch Raw Water pH



Figures 4-6 and 4-7 present the monthly raw water TOC and alkalinity results. TOC ranged from

0.64 mg/L to 8.9 mg/L, with an average of 1.8 mg/L. Alkalinity ranged from 12 mg/L to 52 mg/L,

with an average of 31 mg/L as CaCO3. As indicated in Figure 4-7, alkalinity is increasing from

January 2011 through December 2015 and it appears in general that TOC has been increasing since

about the spring of 2013 through the end of 2015. A review of the quarterly enhanced coagulation

reports for 2011 through 2015 indicates that compliance is achieved either through meeting the

percent reduction of TOC required or by meeting the alternative compliance criteria where the

treated water TOC is less than 2 mg/L.

Figure 4-6 Sheep Ranch TOC (2011-2015)

Figure 4-7 Sheep Ranch Alkalinity(2011-2015)

SHEEP RANCH WTP TREATED WATER QUALITY. Figures 4-8 and 4-9 present the results for TTHMs

and HAA5, respectively. All results are below the respective MCLs.

Figure 4-8 Sheep Ranch TTHMs (2011-2015)

Figure 4-9 Sheep Ranch HAA5 (2011-2015)

SHEEP RANCH TITLE 22 MONITORING. Raw and treated water Title 22 monitoring results are

presented in Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2, respectively. Low levels of aluminum and nitrate

were detected in the raw water. All other inorganic chemicals (IOCs) were ND. During 2011-2015,

one sample indicated a low level detection of tetrachloroethylene (PCE). All other annual samples

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

TOC

(m

g/L

)

Sheep Ranch Raw Water TOC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Alk

alin

ity

(mg

/L a

s C

aC

O3)

Sheep Ranch Raw Water Alkalinity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

TT

HM

s (µ

g/L

)

MCL = 80 µg/L

Sheep Ranch TTHMs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

HA

A5

(µ

g/L

)

MCL = 60 µg/LSheep Ranch HAA5



for PCE were ND. No other VOCs were detected. For the SOC monitoring, results for alachlor,

atrazine, and simazine were ND.

JENNY LIND WTP

The Jenny Lind WTP is located three miles south of Valley Springs. The WTP serves a population

around 10,000, through approximately 3,800 connections, and has a capacity of 6 MGD. The raw

water intake (infiltration gallery) is located in the Calaveras River, approximately one mile south of

New Hogan Reservoir in Jenny Lind.

Raw water from the intake is pumped to two ozone contactors. Ozone can be added to either

chamber in each contactor. Sodium permanganate is added for iron and manganese removal and a

coagulant is added to the ozone contactor effluent and mixed through an in-line, static mixer. A

streaming current detector is used to control the coagulant addition rate. From the static mixer, the

water enters the bottom of an upflow adsorption clarifier. In the adsorption clarifier, the water

passes through a bed of buoyant adsorption media that provide three treatment processes:

coagulation, flocculation, and clarification. The adsorption clarifier effluent flows into a mixed

media filter containing anthracite, sand, and garnet. Sodium hypochlorite is added to the filter

effluent, and zinc orthophosphate is added for corrosion control in the distribution system. The

treated water is pumped to the clearwell (0.245-MG capacity). Water from the clearwell is gravity-

fed to a 2-MG storage tank.

JENNY LIND WTP RAW WATER QUALITY. The raw water supply is sampled weekly for total coliforms

and E. coli. Figure 4-10 presents the total coliform results. The total coliform results ranged from

4.5 MPN/100 mL to >2,419 MPN/100 mL, with an average of 435 MPN/100 mL. The total coliform

results during 2015 were consistently higher than in previous years. This increase in total

coliforms could be due to the impact of the drought on water in New Hogan Reservoir. Figure 4-11

presents the weekly E. coli results. The E. coli results ranged from ND to 350 MPN/100 mL, with an

average of 19 MPN/100 mL.

Figure 4-10 Jenny Lind Total Coliforms (2011-2015)

Figure 4-11 Jenny Lind E. coli (2011-2015)

Figure 4-12 presents the daily raw water turbidity for 2011 through 2015. The turbidity ranged

from 0.29 NTU to 73 NTU, with an average 2 NTU. However, it is noted that the last nine days of

2015 (December 23, 2015 through December 31, 2015) the WTP influent experienced unusually

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Tota

l Co

lifo

rm (

MP

N/1

00

mL)

Jenny Lind Total Coliforms

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

E. c

oli

(MP

N/1

00

mL)

Jenny Lind E. coli



high turbidity results. For this nine day period the turbidity ranged from 19 NTU to 73 NTU, and

the average was 39 NTU. A review of operational information for New Hogan Reservoir indicates a

significant storm event occurred around December 21-22, 2015. Without including these nine

turbidity values, during the entire period of 2011-2015 the turbidity ranged from 0.29 NTU to 22

NTU, and the average was 1.8 NTU.

Figure 4-13 presents the daily pH for the raw water to Jenny Lind WTP. The raw water pH ranged

from 6.7 to 8.2, with an average of 7.3.

Figure 4-12 Jenny Lind Turbidity (2011-2015)

Figure 4-13 Jenny Lind pH (2011-2015)

Figures 4-14 and 4-15 present the monthly raw water TOC and alkalinity results, respectively. The

source water TOC ranged from 2.1 mg/L to 6.5 mg/L, with an average of 3.3 mg/L. The monthly

alkalinity results ranged from a low of 52 mg/L to 94 mg/L, with an average of 71 mg/L as CaCO3.

As indicated in Figure 4-14 beginning in the fall of 2014, the TOC has increased over previous years.

As indicated in Figure 4-15, the raw water alkalinity has been steadily increasing starting in fall of

2011. Five years of enhanced coagulation reports were reviewed for the preparation of this WSS

Update. Compliance with the enhanced coagulation requirements for the Jenny Lind WTP is

achieved through a combination of meeting percent TOC reduction required and the use of

alternative compliance criteria as described in the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule.

Figure 4-14 Jenny Lind TOC (2011-2015)

Figure 4-15 Jenny Lind Alkalinity (2011-2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Turb

idit

y (N

TU

)

Jenny Lind Daily Raw Water Turbidity

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

pH

Jenny Lind Daily Raw Water pH

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

TO

C (

mg

/L)

Jenny Lind Monthly Raw Water TOC

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Alk

alin

ity

(mg

/L a

s C

aC

O3)

Jenny Lind Raw Water Alkalinity



JENNY LIND WTP TREATED WATER QUALITY. DBP compliance samples are collected at four

distribution system locations. In January 2014 one of the compliance sample locations, Oak Ridge,

was replaced with the Nall sample location. CCWD collects monthly samples for TTHMs and HAA5

for Jenny Lind WTP. Figures 4-16 and 4-17 present the monthly TTHM and HAA5 results,

respectively.

Figure 4-16 Jenny Lind Monthly TTHMs (2011-2015)

Figure 4-17 Jenny Lind Monthly HAA5 (2011-2015)

Under the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule, compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 MCLs is determined using a

Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA) at each sample location. The LRAA is the average of the

most recent four quarters of results. Compliance with the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule began in the first

quarter of 2014 at the Jenny Lind WTP. However, for purposes of this WSS Figures 4-18 and 4-19

present the calculated TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs, respectively, for each sample location, for the entire

study period. Since monthly TTHM and HAA5 samples are collected, 12 monthly samples are used

to calculate each LRAA. All four compliance locations are below the MCL. All four of the compliance

locations showed an increasing TTHM LRAA results during 2014 and 2015. The maximum TTHM

LRAA was recorded at the Honda sample location with a four quarter average of 64 µg/L in

December 2015.

Figure 4-18 Jenny Lind TTHM LRAAs (2011-2015)

Figure 4-19 Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs (2011-2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

TT

HM

s (µ

g/L

)

Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Honda Nall

Jenny Lind TTHMs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

HA

A5

(µg

/L)

Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Nall Honda

Jenny Lind HAA5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

De

c-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jun

-12

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

De

c-1

5

TT

HM

s (µ

g/L

)


MCL = 80 µg/L

Jenny Lind TTHM LRAAs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

De

c-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jun

-12

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

De

c-1

5

HA

A5

(µg

/L)


MCL = 60 µg/L

Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs



Because ozone is used at the Jenny Lind WTP, monthly bromate samples are collected in the treated

water. All monthly bromate results for 2011 through 2015 were ND.

JENNY LIND WTP TITLE 22 MONITORING. Appendix B, Table B-3 and B-4 present the 2011 – 2015

results for raw and treated water Title 22 monitoring for the Jenny Lind WTP. All regulated VOCs

and SOCs (alachlor, atrazine, and simazine) were ND. Gross alpha result was ND. Low levels of

nitrate, fluoride and aluminum were detected in the raw water, the results for all other IOCs were

ND. Manganese was detected in the raw water above the secondary MCL, however the average

treated water manganese concentration was below the secondary MCL.

DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP

SEWD provides surface water for agricultural irrigation and wholesale treated surface water from

the DJW WTP for urban uses to City of Stockton, Water Service Company (Cal Water), and the San

Joaquin County Lincoln Village and Colonial Heights maintenance districts. The DJW WTP has two

water sources: Calaveras River diversion at Bellota which conveys raw water directly to the DJW

WTP, and Stanislaus River diversion at Goodwin Dam which conveys raw water via the New Melones Conveyance System to Peter’s Pipeline which then conveys water to the Bellota Pipeline or through Peter’s Pipeline Extension to the DJW WTP. During the study period -2015, the

Stanislaus River (via New Melones Conveyance System) was the primary raw water supply to DJW

WTP. Based on a review of weekly supply records at the DJW WTP influent, the Calaveras was the

primary supply of water in January through March 2011, December 2012 to mid-January 2013, and

mid-March 2015 through the end of the year (with groundwater blending during that time). Raw

water can be stored in four on-site reservoirs at DJW WTP, with a total capacity of 120 MG. During

high turbidity events, the WTP relies on the raw water reservoirs for both presedimentation and

water supply.

DJW WTP is a conventional treatment plant. Raw water entering the WTP is treated with sodium

hypochlorite for disinfection and alum and polymer for coagulation. The water then passes through

a flash mix basin, a flocculation basin, and a sedimentation basin. The settled water is routed to

dual-media (granular activated carbon [GAC] and sand) filters. Filter-aid polymer is added to the

water prior to filtration. Backwash water from the filters is sent to one of the raw water reservoirs

for groundwater recharge. Filter effluent flows through the finished water conduit, where sodium

hydroxide is added to adjust pH for corrosion control in the distribution system. Sodium

hypochlorite is added to the filter effluent. The treated water flows to a 10 MG, buried, finished

water reservoir, from which the water is pumped into the distribution system.

DJW WTP RAW WATER QUALITY. Figure 4-20 presents the weekly total coliform counts measured in

the raw water for the DJWWTP. Total coliform counts ranged from 43 MPN/100 mL to 6,586

MPN/100 mL, with an average of 1,052 MPN/100 mL. For the five year study period, the median

total coliform count was 727 MPN/100 mL. From January 2011 through January 2014 there

appears to be a recurring pattern of elevated coliform counts in the summer months of each year.

On occasion there were elevated counts, greater than 1,000 MPN/mL, some over 2,000 MPN/100

mL. Beginning around spring 2014, however, the coliforms results were generally higher than in

previous years, and there were a small number of coliform results much higher than in previous

years.



Figure 4-21 presents the weekly E. coli results for 2011 to 2015. The E. coli results do not indicate

the same pattern as the total coliform results. The E. coli results are fairly consistent throughout

the study period with occasional elevated counts. The E.coli results ranged from ND to 648

MPN/100 mL, with an average of 26 MPN/100 mL. The median E. coli result for the study period

was approximately 11 MPN/100 mL. In December 2015 SEWD increased microbial monitoring of

the raw water from weekly to five days per week.

DJW WTP operations staff indicated a potential issue with Canadian geese roosting at the on-site

reservoirs associated with the increase in total coliforms. However, as noted a similar increase in E.

coli is not indicated. Lower reservoirs levels due to the drought could also be a contributing factor

to an increase in total coliforms.

Figure 4-20 DJW WTP Weekly Total Coliforms (2011 -2015)

Figure 4-21 DJW WTP Weekly E. Coli (2011 -2015)

Per the LT2ESWTR SEWD conducted two years of source water Cryptosporidium monitoring from

October 2006 through September 2008. Using all results from three sample locations (1) plant

influent, (2) Calaveras River and the (3) Stanislaus River, SEWD calculated a maximum 12-month

concentration of 0.054 oocysts/L (and a Bin 1 classification). After reviewing the two years of

results USEPA, however, used only the results from the plant influent sample location to calculate

an average of 0.075 oocysts/L, placing SEWD in Bin 2. Placement in Bin 2 requires 1 additional log

reduction of Cryptosporidium. SEWD achieves the required 1 additional log credit for

Cryptosporidium by meeting the individual filter turbidity requirement of less than 0.1 NTU in 95

percent of the daily maximum daily values for each filter in each month. DDW included the following requirement in SEWD’s Operating Permit Amendment No. -10-11PA-005 SEWD shall continue to review monthly IFE turbidity data to determine compliance with the <0.1 NTU requirement in at least 95% of the maximum daily readings and watch for any

upward trends. If any filter shows increasing values, diagnose the filter and the

instrumentation to determine the cause of the unusual results and implement corrective

actions to assure continuous compliance with the criteria that allow the SEWD to claim the

additional log of Cryptosporidium treatment...

Figure 4-22 presents daily raw water turbidity. Between January 2011 and December 2015 the raw

water turbidity ranged from 0.48 NTU to 17 NTU with an average of 3.8 NTU. Figure 4-23 presents

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Jul-

10

Oct

-10

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Tota

l Co

lifo

rms

(MP

N/1

00

mL)

DJW WTP Raw Water Total Coliforms**Two data points are not shown on graph: 5,794 MPN/100 mL

and 6,586 MPN/100mL in September 2014.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Jul-

10

No

v-1

0

Ma

r-1

1

Jul-

11

No

v-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jul-

12

No

v-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jul-

13

No

v-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jul-

14

No

v-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jul-

15

No

v-1

5

E. c

oli

(MP

N/1

00

mL)

DJW WTP Raw Water E. coli**One data point is not shown on graph: 648 MPN/100 mL

in November 2012.



the daily raw water hardness. During January 2011 through December 2015 the hardness ranged

from 16 mg/L to 117 mg/L, with an average of 43 mg/L. Starting around April 2015, there was a

significant, consistent increase in the hardness. Reviewing raw supply data for DJW WTP indicates

a likely cause of the increase in hardness. During the period 2011 to 2014 as indicated previously,

Stanislaus River was the primary raw water supply for the DJW WTP with a small amount of

Calaveras River water supplied at different periods. During January 2015 the raw water supply for

DJW WTP was Stanislaus River water. However, beginning in mid-March 2015 Calaveras River

became the primary raw water supply for the remainder of the year. In September 2015 SEWD

began blending groundwater with Calaveras River supply in the influent to DJW WTP (the

groundwater supply ranged from 37 to 51 percent of the total raw water supply from September 9,

2015 through the end of the year). The increases in hardness presented in Figure 4-23 appears to

be closely related to the use of Calaveras River as the primary raw water supply. (Raw water

hardness for Jenny Lind WTP ranged from 75 to 111 mg/L, averaging 89 mg/L during 2011-2015.)

Figure 4-22 DJW WTP Daily Turbidity (2011-2015)

Figure 4-23 DJW WTP Daily Hardness (2011-2015)

Figure 4-24 presents the daily temperature in the raw water to DJWWTP. The temperature

readings ranged from 1.4 to 27 oC, with an average of approximately 18 oC. There is a consistent

pattern of temperature fluctuation in the raw water. Figure 4-24 appears to indicate a slight

increase in the maximum temperatures over the five year study period. The maximum recorded

temperature during 2011 was 23 oC, while in 2015 the maximum recorded temperature was 27 oC

Figure 4-25 presents the daily raw water color measurements. The color results ranged from 8 to

100 color units, with an average of approximately 18 color units during the study period. As

presented in Figure 4-25 the raw water to the DJW WTP experienced periods of elevated color in

the winter/spring months of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Turb

idit

y (N

TU

)

DJW WTP Raw Water Turbidity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Ha

rdn

ess

(mg

/L)

DJW WTP Raw Water Daily Hardness



Figure 4-24 DJW WTP Daily Temperature (2011-2015)

Figure 4-25 DJW WTP Daily Color (2011-2015)

Because DJW WTP is a conventional WTP, the enhanced coagulation requirements of the Stage 1

D/DBP Rule apply. Figures 4-26 and 4-27 present the monthly raw water TOC and alkalinity

results, respectively. During the study period the raw water TOC ranged from 1.2 mg/L to 9.5

mg/L, with an average result of 2.8 mg/L. The alkalinity ranged from 18 mg/L to 115 mg/L, with an

average of 43 mg/L (as CaCO3). There was a significant increase in alkalinity beginning around

February 2015 (with the use of the Calaveras River supply). In November 2013, SEWD was issued a

compliance order (Compliance Order No. 03-10-13R) by DDW to develop a corrective action plan to

achieve compliance with the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule enhanced coagulation requirements.

Figure 4-26 DJW WTP Monthly TOC (2011-2015)

Figure 4-27 DJW WTP Monthly Alkalinity (2011-2015)

DJW WTP Finished Water Quality. SEWD collects quarterly TTHM and HAA5 samples in the

treated water effluent of the DJW WTP. Figures 4-28 and 4-29 present the quarterly TTHM and

HAA5 results, respectively. The results presented in these figures are the individual quarterly

results, and are not the calculated running annual average. All sample results during the study

period were below the respective MCLs. The highest results were recorded in December 2012

when the TTHM result was 65 µg/L and the HAA5 result was 43 µg/L.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

oC

)DJW WTP Raw Water Temperature

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Co

lor

(co

lor

un

its)

DJW WTP Raw Water Color

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ma

r-1

1

Jun

-11

Se

p-1

1

De

c-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jun

-12

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

TO

C (

mg

/L)

DJW WTP Raw Water TOC

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan

-11

Ap

r-1

1

Jul-

11

Oct

-11

Jan

-12

Ap

r-1

2

Jul-

12

Oct

-12

Jan

-13

Ap

r-1

3

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Jul-

14

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Oct

-15

Alk

alin

ity

(mg

/L)

DJW WTP Daily Raw Water Alkalinity



Figure 4-28 DJW WTP Quarterly TTHMs (2011-2015)

Figure 4-29 DJW WTP Quarterly HAA5 (2011-2015)

Figures 4-30 and 4-31 present the calculated LRAAs for TTHMs and HAA5, respectively. The results

are well below the respective MCLs.

Figure 4-30 DJW WTP TTHM LRAA (2011-2015)

Figure 4-31 DJW WTP HAA5 LRAA (2011-2015)

DJW WTP TITLE 22. Appendix B, Table B-5 present the results of Title 22 monitoring for the DJW

WTP Calaveras River Bellota intake. Table B-6 presents Title 22 monitoring results for finished

water at the DJWWTP. During 2011-2015 there were no VOCs or SOCs detected. Low levels of

aluminum, barium, nitrate, and chromium were detected in the raw water. All finished water levels

were either well below the MCL or ND. Iron and manganese were detected in the raw water, while

finished water levels were ND (iron) or well below the secondary MCL (average treated water

manganese concentration was 6 µg/L).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ma

r-1

1

Jun

-11

Se

p-1

1

De

c-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jun

-12

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

De

c-1

5

TT

HM

s (µ

g/L

)DJW WTP Quarterly TTHMs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ma

r-1

1

Jun

-11

Se

p-1

1

De

c-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jun

-12

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

De

c-1

5

HA

A5

(µ

g/L

)

DJW WTP Quarterly HAA5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

De

c-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jun

-12

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

De

c-1

5

TT

HM

s (µ

g/L

)

MCL = 80 µg/L

DJW WTP TTHM RAA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

De

c-1

1

Ma

r-1

2

Jun

-12

Se

p-1

2

De

c-1

2

Ma

r-1

3

Jun

-13

Se

p-1

3

De

c-1

3

Ma

r-1

4

Jun

-14

Se

p-1

4

De

c-1

4

Ma

r-1

5

Jun

-15

Se

p-1

5

De

c-1

5

HA

A5

(µg

/L)

MCL = 60 µg/L

DJW WTP HAA5 RAA

SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Public water systems using surface water supplies maintain multiple barriers in order to provide

safe drinking water to their customers. Protecting source waters is the initial barrier. The second

barrier is the provision of adequate treatment designed to handle and treat raw water to provide

safe drinking water. A WSS provides the opportunity every five years to conduct an assessment of

these barriers and to make course corrections, if needed.

This section presents a summary of key conclusions from the analysis presented in this document,

and a list of recommendations.


Based on the review of potential contaminant sources in Section 3, Table 5-1 presents the potential

risk to raw water quality for the three intakes.

Table 5-1 Risk Associated with Contaminant Sources

Watershed Activities Potential Risk

Forestry Low

Agricultural Cropland and Pesticides Low

Livestock Low - Medium

Mining Low

Recreation Low - Medium

Solid and Hazardous Wastes Low

Urban Runoff & Spills Low

Wastewater Low

Wildfires Low - Medium

Wildlife Medium

Level of potential risk associated with observed land uses and activities. Risk

primarily based on treatability concerns (e.g., pathogens being a higher risk than

particulates) as well as the potential for the contaminant to enter waterbodies.

A brief overview is provided of potential contaminant sources in the Calaveras River watershed.

The most significant contaminant sources are those associated with pathogens.

FORESTRY – forestry activities in the Calaveras River watershed are considered to pose a low threat

due to the low acreage logged on an annual basis and the existing controls in place. Agencies

involved in regulating this activity include the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL Fire, and

the SWRCB and RWQCB.

PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES – pesticides and herbicides continue to be stringently regulated and

there are no indications that they pose a threat to water quality in the Calaveras River watershed.

CATTLE GRAZING – cattle graze in the lower watershed of the Calaveras River and are considered a

low to medium threat for the Jenny Lind WTP and DJW WTP. Cattle can pose a threat to water

quality due to erosion, nutrients and pathogens. The USACOE has eliminated most of the grazing



lands surrounding New Hogan Reservoir, but cattle have access to the North Fork Calaveras River

on private lands upstream of the confluence of the North and South Fork.

MINING – Calaveras River watershed has a number of inactive gold, copper, and limestone mines

and several active hard rock mines. Based on a review of monitoring results for dissolved metals,

there is no evidence to suggest an adverse impact of these mines on water quality for the three

participating public water systems.

RECREATION – recreational use, including body contact recreation, occurs throughout the Calaveras

River watershed. Body contact recreation poses a potential contribution of fecal contamination,

including pathogens.

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES – there appears to be low potential for solid and hazardous wastes to

adversely impact water quality in the Calaveras River Watershed.

URBAN RUNOFF AND SPILLS – there is little evidence of urban runoff causing adverse impacts on

water quality. There are a number of stormwater NPDES permits in place. There are a four

highways that traverse the watershed, but they are mostly inter- and intra- county traffic and do

not serve as major transportation corridors in State.

WASTEWATER – the San Andreas Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges to the North Fork of the

Calaveras River upstream of New Hogan reservoir (surface water discharges are prohibited from

May 1st through October 31st each year). During 2011-2015 the facility received 71 violation

notices from the Regional Board, primarily due to category 2 pollutants such as copper, zinc,

cyanide and residual chlorine. Wastewater is rated as low-medium threat to water quality.

WILDFIRES – Calaveras County was designated with a very high fire risk rating. The recent increase in loss of trees due to State’s ongoing drought and bark beetle infestation raise the risk for faster

moving and more intense fires. The aftermath can lead to large loadings of sediment and organic

matter in surface water runoff.

WILDLIFE – the large area of undeveloped/forested land in watershed and large numbers of wild

animals and migratory birds can be a particular concern. Wildlife is rated as a medium risk to

water quality due to the fact that wildlife, including migratory birds, can contribute to fecal

contamination and nutrients in waterbodies, either directly or through storm water runoff.

WATER QUALITY FINDINGS

SHEEP RANCH WTP

MICROBIAL – during 2011-2015, there was an average total coliform concentration of approximately

470 MPN/100 mL. The coliform results throughout the study period 2011-2015 were extremely

variable, ranging from ND to >2,319 MPN/100mL. The variability may be due to the location of the

WTP intake in San Antonio Creek. While there is no clear trend in the results over the 5 years

period, the 2015 results may be indicating an increase in levels. For E. coli, the results are similar to

the results presented in the 2011 WSS and do not indicate a degradation in water quality.

TURBIDITY – there were four events (days) during 2011 – 2015 where raw water turbidity exceeded

10 NTU and the WTP automatically shut down. All four events occurred in winter/spring periods

and were likely caused by storm water runoff. The majority of raw turbidity results were less than

5 NTU and the treatment plant should be able to produce water meeting the surface water turbidity



performance requirements. There is no indication in a trend or increasing turbidity in the raw

water.

TOC/ALKALINITY – there was a large variation in raw water TOC during 2011 – 2015, with a low

TOC value of 0.6 mg/L and a maximum of 8.9 mg/L. Most TOC results were less than 4 mg/L. It

appears that in beginning spring 2014 there has been a slight increase in the raw water TOC

concentration. There is a clear increase in alkalinity over the five year study period. Compliance

with the enhanced coagulation requirements is maintained through meeting the required TOC

reduction or use of alternative compliance criteria.

PH – the raw water pH for Sheep Ranch WTP also indicated variability as results ranged from 6 to

8.5. This could be due to the geology of the area or organic material in the water.

DBPS – the treatment plant effluent results were consistently below the MCLs for THMs and HAA5

during 2011-2015.

TITLE 22 – while one annual sample reported a low level detection of PCE, all other sample results

for PCE were ND. All other VOCs and SOCs were ND. There were no detected levels of concern for

metals, general mineral or physical parameters.

JENNY LIND WTP

MICROBIAL – there was an increase in raw water total coliforms during 2015, compared to the

previous four years. During 2015 there were a number of results reported as >2,419 MPN/100 mL.

The increase in total coliforms could be a result of the low levels of water in New Hogan due to the

ongoing drought. A similar change in E. coli results was not observed.

TURBIDITY – the reported raw water turbidity results throughout 2011-2015 were low, with the

exception of the last nine days during 2015 when a significant increase in turbidity was observed.

The turbidity spiked from 2.5 NTU on December 22, 2015 up to 71 NTU on December 24th. A

review of operational information for New Hogan Reservoir indicates a significant storm event

around December 21-22, 2015.

TOC/ALKALINITY – beginning fall 2014 the TOC results indicate a general increase. From summer

2011 through the end of 2015 the alkalinity has generally been increasing. Compliance with

enhanced coagulation requirements of the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule are met on a monthly basis either

through meeting the required TOC reduction or use of an alternative compliance criteria.

DBPS – starting in summer 2014 the quarterly THM results show a consistent increase at all four

sample locations (however, the fourth quarter 2015 results indicate a drop in THM levels). During

the third and fourth quarter of 2015 several of the monthly THM results were at or above the MCL,

but the LRAA was below the MCL. The calculated LRAAs are below the MCL.

Title 22 – all regulated VOCs and SOCs were ND. Low levels of a few IOCs were detected, but all

results were well below the MCLs. Manganese was detected above the secondary MCL in raw

water, while the average treated water manganese result was 6 µg/L.

DJW WTP

MICROBIAL – there was a lot of variability in total coliform results during 2011-2015. The results

ranged from 43 MPN/100 mL to 6,586 MPN/100 mL. During 2015 the increase in total coliforms is

more pronounced than in previous years. SEWD has increased total coliform sample collection



from weekly to 5 days per week. There were several elevated E. coli results during the study

period, but the average of the E. coli results was 11 MPN/100 mL.

TURBIDITY – raw water turbidity ranged from 0.48 NTU to 17 NTU. The turbidity appears to

increase during winter/spring periods and is likely due to storm events.

TOC/ALKALINITY – raw water TOC ranged from 1.2 mg/L to 9.5 mg/L during 2011-2015. In

November 2013, DDW issued a Compliance Order for the DJW WTP to achieve compliance with the

enhanced coagulation requirements of the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule.

DBPs – levels of TTHMs and HAA5 in the effluent of the DJW WTP were well below the respective

MCLs.

Title 22 – no VOCs or SOCs were detected. While low levels of a few IOCs were detected, results for

all other regulated IOCs were ND.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations reflect areas where SCRG member agencies have some ability to

control source water quality within the Calaveras River watershed.

The water districts should continually review data for the presence of pathogens associated

with failing or leaking OWTSs. Continue working with Calaveras County Environmental

Health Department to be notified of any reports of spills or leakage. Work with the County

to solicit funding sources to cover the cost of additional monitoring, oversight, and

replacement of aging systems near watershed waterbodies. Work with the County to

encourage homeowners to notify the County of any problems with their own OWTS or any

leaking systems they may discover; this can be done, for example, by providing public

education billing inserts for customers located in the watershed or through newspaper,

website, and other advertising tools.

CCWD and SEWD should continually update their emergency contact systems to provide the

most efficient notifications of sewage overflows and hazardous materials spills, particularly

at waterbodies.

The water districts should continue to follow technical research updates on water quality

concerns associated with cattle grazing.

SCRG member agencies should encourage Calaveras County to implement Low Impact

Development Design Principles for new development to reduce peak flows (which can cause

high turbidity events) and to remove contaminants during runoff.

All three of the intakes to the treatment plants experienced elevated total coliform levels

during 2015. The California SWTR Guidance Manual recommends a 1-log increase in

Giardia and virus reduction if the monthly median coliform results are greater than 1,000

MPN/100 mL and less than 10,000 MPN/100 mL. While none of the systems exceeded this

trigger, consideration should be given to an increase in disinfection (suggest sufficient

disinfection to demonstrate an additional 0.5 log Giardia inactivation). This

recommendation should only be considered with a parallel effort to study the impact of

increased disinfection on DBP formation and whether the agencies can identify a practical,

cost-effective enhanced DBP control program.



SEWD and CCWD should work with USACOE to encourage monitoring of total coliform and

E. coli on a regular basis in beach areas and near the outlet of the New Hogan reservoir.

Work with USACOE to develop total coliform and E. coli triggers that would indicate a halt to

body contact recreation.

Recommend that CCWD post signs stating that White Pines Lake is a drinking water source

and it is important to keep dogs and babies in diapers out of the lake.

Recommend that SEWD and CCWD investigate analytical methods and evaluate the benefits

of monitoring for targeted algal toxins that will be included in the UCMR4 monitoring

program. If CCWD and SEWD implement a monitoring program for algal toxins, it is

recommended that both agencies also develop a plan for how to respond to the detection of

algal toxins and evaluate the effectiveness of the current treatment processes in

removing/destroying algal toxins.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH

CATTLE GRAZING AND RECREATION ON NATIONAL

FOREST LANDS

Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazingand Recreation on National Forest Lands

Leslie M. Roche1*, Lea Kromschroeder1, Edward R. Atwill2, Randy A. Dahlgren3, Kenneth W. Tate1

1Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, 2 School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California University of

California, Davis, California, United States of America, 3Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America

Abstract

There is substantial concern that microbial and nutrient pollution by cattle on public lands degrades water quality,threatening human and ecological health. Given the importance of clean water on multiple-use landscapes, additionalresearch is required to document and examine potential water quality issues across common resource use activities. Duringthe 2011 grazing-recreation season, we conducted a cross sectional survey of water quality conditions associated with cattlegrazing and/or recreation on 12 public lands grazing allotments in California. Our specific study objectives were to 1)quantify fecal indicator bacteria (FIB; fecal coliform and E. coli), total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, andsoluble-reactive phosphorus concentrations in surface waters; 2) compare results to a) water quality regulatory benchmarks,b) recommended maximum nutrient concentrations, and c) estimates of nutrient background concentrations; and 3)examine relationships between water quality, environmental conditions, cattle grazing, and recreation. Nutrientconcentrations observed throughout the grazing-recreation season were at least one order of magnitude below levelsof ecological concern, and were similar to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) estimates for background waterquality conditions in the region. The relative percentage of FIB regulatory benchmark exceedances widely varied underindividual regional and national water quality standards. Relative to USEPA’s national E. coli FIB benchmarks–the mostcontemporary and relevant standards for this study–over 90% of the 743 samples collected were below recommendedcriteria values. FIB concentrations were significantly greater when stream flow was low or stagnant, water was turbid, andwhen cattle were actively observed at sampling. Recreation sites had the lowest mean FIB, total nitrogen, and soluble-reactive phosphorus concentrations, and there were no significant differences in FIB and nutrient concentrations betweenkey grazing areas and non-concentrated use areas. Our results suggest cattle grazing, recreation, and provisioning of cleanwater can be compatible goals across these national forest lands.

Citation: Roche LM, Kromschroeder L, Atwill ER, Dahlgren RA, Tate KW (2013) Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation onNational Forest Lands. PLoS ONE 8(6): e68127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127

Editor: A. Mark Ibekwe, U. S. Salinity Lab, United States of America

Received October 30, 2012; Accepted May 30, 2013; Published June 27, 2013

Copyright: � 2013 Roche et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This research was funded by USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. The funders did provide field data collection assistance. The funders hadno role in data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Livestock grazing allotments on public lands managed by the

United States Forest Service (USFS) provide critical forage

supporting ranching enterprises and local economies [1–3].

Surface waters on public lands are used for human recreation

and consumption, and serve as critical aquatic habitat. Concerns

have been raised that microbial and nutrient pollution by livestock

grazing on public lands degrades water quality, threatening

human and ecological health [4–7]. Some of the contaminants

of concern include fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), fecal coliform

(FC) and Escherichia coli (E. coli), as well as nitrogen (N) and

phosphorus (P). FIB are regulated in an attempt to safeguard

public health from waterborne pathogens such as Cryptosporidium

parvum and E. coli O157:H7 and human enteroviruses including

adenoviruses and coliphages [8]. Concerns about elevated N and P

concentrations in surface water stem from the potential for

eutrophication of aquatic systems [9].

The USFS must balance the many resource use activities

occurring on national forests (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation).

National forests in the western United States support 1.8 million

livestock annually, provisioning 6.1 million animal unit months

(AUM) of forage supply allocated through 5,220 grazing permits

held by private ranching enterprises [10]. In California (USFS

Region 5), 500 active grazing allotments annually supply 408,000

AUM of forage to support 97,000 livestock across 3.2 million ha

on 17 national forests. With an annual recreating population of

over 26 million [11], California’s national forests are at the

crossroad of a growing debate about the compatibility of livestock

grazing with other activities (e.g., recreation) dependent upon

clean, safe water.

There is a paucity of original research on water quality

conditions on public grazing lands, and the conclusions of these

reports are often inconsistent. For example, in California’s Sierra

Nevada, Derlet and Carlson [6] found surface water samples

collected below horse and cattle grazing areas on USFS-

administered lands were more likely to have detectable E. coli

than non-grazed sites in national parks. Derlet et al. [12] reported

algal coverage, algal-E. coli associations, and detection of

waterborne E. coli to be greatest at sites below cattle grazing and

lowest below sites experiencing little to no human or cattle activity,

with human recreation sites being intermediate. Also in the central

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127

Sierra Nevada, Myers and Whited [13] found FIB increased in

surface waters below key grazing areas on USFS allotments

following the arrival of cattle. However, Roche et al. [14] found no

evidence of degradation of Yosemite toad breeding pool water

quality in key grazing areas on three allotments in the Sierra

National Forest of central California. Examining land-use and

water quality associations in watersheds throughout the Cosumnes

River Basin, Ahearn et al. [15] also reported water quality

conditions in upper forested watersheds, which include USFS

grazing allotments, to be well below levels of ecological concern.

The purpose of this study was to quantify microbial pollutant

and nutrient concentrations during the summer cattle grazing and

recreation season on 12 representative allotments across 5 national

forests in northern California. Specific objectives were to 1)

quantify FC, E. coli, total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total

phosphorus, and soluble-reactive phosphate concentrations in

surface waters; 2) compare these results to a) water quality

regulatory benchmarks, b) maximum nutrient concentrations

recommended to avoid eutrophication, and c) estimates of nutrient

background concentrations for this region; and 3) examine

relationships between water quality, environmental conditions,

and cattle grazing and recreation (i.e., resource uses).

Methods

Ethics StatementPermission for site access was granted by the US Forest Service,

and no permits were required.

Study AreaThis cross sectional, longitudinal water quality survey was

completed across 12 grazing allotments on USFS-managed public

Figure 1. The 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments (shaded polygons) in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectionallongitudinal study of stream water quality between June and November 2011. Unshaded polygons are other U.S. Forest Service grazingallotments in the study area.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g001

Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands


lands in northern California, USA (Fig. 1). Allotments were

selected to represent the diversity of climate, soil, vegetation, water

quality regulatory agencies, and resource use activities found

across this landscape. The study area ranged from 41u409 to

37u559 N latitude and 123u309 to 120u109 W longitude, and

included national forests in the Klamath, Coast, Cascade, and

Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges. Allotments were located on the

Klamath (Allotments 1, 2), Shasta-Trinity (Allotments 3–6),

Plumas (Allotments 7, 8), Tahoe (Allotments 9, 10), and Stanislaus

(Allotments 11, 12) National Forests (Fig. 1). The study area

totaled approximately1,300 km2 and elevation ranged from 207 to

3,016 m (Table S1). The prevailing climate is Mediterranean with

cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The majority of

precipitation falls as snow between December and April, with

snow melt generally occurring between May and June. Soils in

Allotments 1–2, 5–7, and 11 are dominated by Inceptisols;

Allotments 3, 10, and 12 are dominated by Alfisols; Allotment 8

and 9 are dominated by Mollisols; and Allotment 4 is dominated

by Andisols [16] (Table S1).

All allotments were located in mountainous watersheds with

canopy cover of mesic and xeric forests ranging from 9 to 89 and 2

to 93% cover, respectively [17]. Cooler mesic conifer forests were

dominated by white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies magnifica), and

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The relatively drier xeric conifer

forests were dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and

Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Montane hardwood and shrub cover

ranged from 0 to 20%, and grass and forb cover from 1 to 9%.

Wet meadows and other riparian plant communities covered 1 to

5% of allotment areas, and were the primary forage source for

cattle grazing in these allotments.

Grazing ManagementCattle grazing management strategies on the study allotments

reflect those widely found on western public grazing lands, such as

those reviewed in Delcurto et al. [18] and George et al. [19].

Study allotments were grazed with commercial beef cow-calf pairs

during the June to November grazing-growing season, following

allotment-specific management plans designed to achieve annual

herbaceous forage use standards (Table S1). Herbaceous use

standards are set as an annual management target to protect

ecological condition and function of meadow and riparian sites

[20], and vary by national forest, allotment, and meadow

ecological conditions [21–27].

Cattle stocking densities ranged from 1 animal unit (,450 kg

cow with or without calf) per 18 ha to 1 animal unit per 447 ha

(Table S1). Timing of grazing (turn on and turn off dates for

cattle), duration of grazing season, and number of cattle are

permitted by the USFS on an allotment-specific basis. Animal unit

month (AUM) is the mass of forage required to sustain a single

animal unit for a 30-day period, and is the standard metric of

grazing pressure on USFS allotments.

Foraging, and thus spatial distribution of cattle feces and urine,

is non-uniform across these allotments. Areas receiving relatively

concentrated use by cattle are referred to as key grazing areas. Key

grazing areas are often relatively small, stream-associated mead-

ows and riparian areas that are preferentially grazed by cattle due

to high forage quantity and quality and drinking water availability.

For the most part, allotments are not cross-fenced to create

pastures, which would improve grazing distribution. Where cross-

fences exist, resulting pasture sizes are large (.2000 ha) with few

pastures per allotment (,3).

Sample Site SelectionKey grazing areas and concentrated recreation areas within

200 m of streams in each allotment were identified and enrolled in

the study in collaboration with local USFS managers and forest

stakeholders. Water sample collection sites were established in

streams immediately above, beside, and/or below sites with each

activity to characterize water quality associated with these

activities. Recreational activities included developed and undevel-

oped campgrounds, swimming-bathing areas, and trailheads used

by hikers and recreational horse riders (i.e., pack stock). Key

grazing areas were meadows and riparian areas that cattle were

known to graze and occupy frequently and/or for extended

periods throughout the grazing season. Additional sites were

established at perennial flow tributary confluences with no

concentrated use activities, enabling us to objectively include

comparison sites across allotments with no concentrated grazing

and/or recreation. While cattle use was concentrated primarily in

key grazing areas, cattle grazing could occur throughout each

allotment; therefore, it was not possible to determine water quality

conditions in the complete absence of cattle.

A total of 155 stream water sample collection sites were

identified and sampled monthly throughout the 2011 summer

grazing-recreation period. Sample collection sites per allotment

ranged from 7 to 18, depending upon the number of key grazing

Table 1. Concentrations of total nitrogen (TN), nitrate (NO3-N), ammonium (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate (PO4-P)for 743 stream water samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California.

Nutrient Meana (mg L21)

Median (mg

L21) Maximum (mg L21) Below Detectionb (%) Eutrophicationc (mg L21) Backgroundd (mg L21)

TN 5862.7 33 675 5 – 60–530

NO3-N 1960.9 5 221 51 300 5–40

NH4-N 1160.4 5 146 61 – –

TP 2162.8 9 1321 32 100 9–32

PO4-P 760.3 5 83 40 50 –

Published estimates of concentrations of general concern for eutrophication of stream water, and estimates of background concentrations for the study area areprovided for context.aThe ‘6’ indicates 1 standard error of the mean.bPercentage of samples below minimum analytical detection limit. Limits were 10 mg L21 for nitrogen and 5 mg L21 for phosphorous. Observations below detectionlimit were set to one half detection limit (5 mg L21 for nitrogen and 2.5 mg L21 for phosphorus) for calculation of mean and median concentrations.cConcentrations if exceeded indicate potential for eutrophication of streams [38–42].dEstimated range of background concentrations for the three U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III sub-ecoregions (5, 9, 78) included in the study [43].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t001



Figure 2. Overall monthly nitrogen concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 sample sites across 12 U.S.Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study between June andNovember 2011. (A) Total nitrogen, (B) nitrate (NO3-N), and (C) ammonium (NH4-N) were measured directly. (D) Organic nitrogen represents thedifference between total nitrogen and NO3-N plus NH4-N. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal linewithin shaded box is median value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and 90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. Junen= 135; July n= 150; August n= 178; September n= 120; October n= 127; November n= 33.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g002



and recreation areas identified, and number of tributary conflu-

ences (Table S1). Sixty-three percent of sample sites were

associated with key grazing areas, 17% were associated with

recreation activities, and 20% were tributary confluences with no

concentrated use activities.

Figure 3. Overall monthly phosphorus concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 sample sites across 12 U.S.Forest Service grazing allotments in California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study between June and November2011. (A) Total phosphorus (B) and soluble-reactive phosphorus (PO4-P) were measured directly. (C) Non-soluble-reactive phosphorus represents thedifference between total phosphorus (measured on unfiltered sample and treated with digesting agent) and soluble-reactive phosphorus. Bottomand top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal line within shaded box is median value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. June n= 135; July n=150; August n= 178; September n= 120; Octobern= 127; November n= 33.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g003



Sample Collection and AnalysisIn 2011, a total of 743 water samples were collected and

analyzed during the June 1 through November 9 study period,

which captured the period of overlapping cattle grazing and

recreation activities across these allotments. On each allotment,

sampling occurred monthly throughout the grazing-recreation

season. All sites in an allotment were sampled on the same day.

Total sample numbers per allotment ranged from 40 to 88 (Table

S1).

At the time of sample collection, environmental conditions and/

or resource use activities that may have affected water quality were

recorded. Specifically, the following conditions were noted (yes/

no): 1) stagnant-low stream flow (,2 liters per second); 2) turbid

stream water; 3) recreation (i.e., swimming-bathing, camping,

hiking, fishing, horse riding); 4) cattle; and 5) any activities (i.e., low

stream flow, turbid water, precipitation, cattle, recreation users)

observed that may affect water quality. If algae, periphyton, or

other aquatic autotrophic organisms were present at high to

moderate levels (.20% of substrate cover) at time of sampling,

then these conditions were recorded.

A vertical, depth-integrated stream water collection was made at

the stream channel thalweg [28]. Water was collected in sterilized,

acid-washed one liter sample containers, which were immediately

stored on ice. All samples were analyzed for FC and E. coli within 8

hours of field collection. A 250 ml subsample was taken from each

sample, frozen within 24 hours of collection, and processed for

nutrient concentrations within 28 days of field collection. FC and

E. coli concentrations as colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of

water sample were determined by direct one step membrane

filtration (0.45 mm nominal porosity filter) and incubation (44.5uC,

22–24 hours) on selective agar following standard method

SM9222D [29]. Difco mFC Agar (Becton, Dickinson and

Company, Spars, MD, USA) and CHROMagar E. coli (Chro-

mAgar, Paris, France) were used for FC and E. coli, respectively.

Total N (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) were measured after

persulfate digestion of non-filtered subsamples following Yu et al.

[30] and standard method SM4500-P.D [29], respectively.

Concentrations of nitrate (NO3-N), ammonium (NH4-N), and

soluble-reactive phosphorus (PO4-P) were determined from filtered

(0.45 mm nominal porosity filter) subsamples following Doane and

Horwath [31], Verdouw et al. [32], and Eaton et al. [29],

Figure 4. Overall monthly (A) fecal coliform and (B) E. coli concentrations for 743 stream water samples collected from 155 samplesites across 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal studybetween June and November 2011. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25th and 75th percentile of data, horizontal line within shaded box ismedian value, ends of vertical lines are 10th and 90th percentiles of data, and black dots are 5th and 95th percentiles of data. June n= 135; July n= 150;August n= 178; September n= 120; October n= 127; November n= 33.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g004



respectively. Minimum detection limits were ,10 mg L21 for TN,

NH4-N, and NO3-N and ,5 mg L21 for TP and PO4-P. Organic

nitrogen (ON) was calculated as TN – [NO3-N+NH4-N], and non-

soluble-reactive PO4-P was calculated as TP – PO4-P. Laboratory

quality control included replicates, spikes, reference materials,

control limits, criteria for rejection, and data validation methods

[33].

Data Analysis and InterpretationDescriptive statistics were calculated for the overall dataset as

well as by 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and sample sites

with no concentrated resource use; 2) activity observed at time of

sample collection; 3) and month. Results were compared to

numerous FIB benchmark concentrations used in the formulation

of contemporary microbial water quality standards, maximum

nutrient concentrations recommended to avoid eutrophication,

and background nutrient concentration estimates for surface

waters across the study area. The United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) nationally recommends and has

provided guidance on E. coli FIB-based standards ranging from

100 to 410 cfu 100 ml21, dependent upon selected illness rate

benchmarks and frequency of sample collection over a 30 day

period [34]. The study area falls within the jurisdiction of three

semi-autonomous California Regional Water Quality Control

Boards (RWQCBs), each of which has established enforceable

standards based on FC benchmarks [35–37] ranging from 20 to

400 cfu 100 ml21. We report study results relative to each of these

benchmarks to allow for comparisons to the various national and

regional policies. For our study, which is based on monthly

monitoring of multiple land-use activity types and environmental

conditions across a broad regional scale (spanning approximate-

ly1,300 km2), the most relevant and contemporary comparisons

are the national U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

E. coli single sample-based [8,34] standards of 190 cfu 100 ml21

(estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators)

and 235 cfu 100 ml21 (estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000

primary contact recreators).

General recommendations for maximum concentrations to

prevent eutrophication of streams and rivers are 300, 100, and

50 mg L21 for NO3-N, TP, and PO4-P, respectively [38–42]. The

study area is within three USEPA Level III Sub-Ecoregions (5, 9,

and 78), and estimated background concentrations for TN, NO3-

N, and TP in these sub-regions range from 60 to 530, 5 to 40, and

9 to 32 mg L21, respectively [43].

Table 2. Percentage of 743 stream water samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments innorthern California which exceeded water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly.

Benchmark

Overall

(% of 743)

Key Grazing Area

(% of 462)

Recreation Area

(% of 125)

No Concentrated Use Activities

(% of 156)

FC .20 cfu 100 ml21a 50 48 46 58

FC .50 cfu 100 ml21b 31 28 27 42

FC .200 cfu 100 ml21c 10 10 6 13

FC .400 cfu 100 ml21d 4 5 2 4

E. coli .100 cfu 100 ml21e 9 8 7 11

E. coli .126 cfu 100 ml21f 7 7 6 8

*E. coli .190 cfu 100 ml21g 5 4 4 6

*E. coli .235 cfu 100 ml21h 3 3 3 4

E. coli .320 cfu 100 ml21i 2 2 2 2

E. coli .410 cfu 100 ml21j 1 2 2 1

NO3-N .300 mg L21k 0 0 0 0

TP.100 mg L21l 2 2 2 ,1

PO4-P.50 mg L21m,1 1 0 0

Results are reported for samples collected across all sample sites (overall) as well as for samples collected at sample sites monitored to characterize specific resource useactivities across the allotments.*Indicates the most relevant and contemporary standards for this study.aFecal coliform (FC) benchmark designated by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) (based on geometric mean (GM) of samples collected over a30-day interval) [36].bFC benchmark designated by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) (based on a median of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [37].cFC benchmark designated by Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [35].dFC benchmark designated by CVRWQCB and NCRWQCB (maximum threshold value not to be exceeded by more than 10% of samples over a 30-day interval) [35].eE. coli benchmark designated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based onGM of samples collected over a 30-day interval).fE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-dayinterval).gE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).hE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).i E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contactrecreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).jE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water qualitydistribution based on desired GM).k Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) recommended by USEPA [38,39].lMaximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40].mMaximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) recommended by USEPA [39,41].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t002



At the sample site-scale, we used bivariate generalized linear

mixed effects models (GLMMs) and zero-inflated count models to

test for mean FIB and nutrient concentration (dependent variables

were fecal coliform, E. coli, TN, NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4-P)

Table 3. Percentage of 155 stream water sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California whichhad at least one exceedance of water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly.

Benchmark

Overall

(% of 155)

Key Grazing Area

(% of 97)

Recreation Area

(% of 27)

No Concentrated Use Activities

(% of 31)

FC .20 cfu 100 ml21a 83 82 81 87

FC .50 cfu 100 ml21b 65 61 63 81

FC .200 cfu 100 ml21c 34 36 22 39

FC .400 cfu 100 ml21d 18 20 11 19

E. coli .100 cfu 100 ml21e 29 31 22 29

E. coli .126 cfu 100 ml21f 25 28 19 23

*E. coli .190 cfu 100 ml21g 17 16 15 19

*E. coli .235 cfu 100 ml21h 14 13 11 16

E. coli .320 cfu 100 ml21i 8 6 11 10

E. coli .410 cfu 100 ml21j 6 6 7 3

NO3-N .300 mg L21k 0 0 0 0

TP.100 mg L21l 8 10 7 3

PO4-P.50 mg L21m 2 3 0 0

Results are reported for all sample sites (overall) as well as for sample sites monitored to characterize specific resource use activities across the allotments. *Indicates themost relevant and contemporary standards for this study.aFecal coliform (FC) benchmark designated by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) (based on geometric mean (GM) of samples collected over a30-day interval) [36].bFC benchmark designated by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) (based on a median of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [37].cFC benchmark designated by Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-day interval) [35].dFC benchmark designated by CVRWQCB and NCRWQCB (maximum threshold value not to be exceeded by more than 10% of samples over a 30-day interval) [35].eE. coli benchmark designated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based onGM of samples collected over a 30-day interval).fE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (based on GM of samples collected over a 30-dayinterval).gE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).hE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (for a single grab sample, approximates the 75thpercentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).i E. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contactrecreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water quality distribution based on desired GM).jE. coli benchmark designated by USEPA [34] for an estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 primary contact recreators (approximates the 90th percentile of a water qualitydistribution based on desired GM).k Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) recommended by USEPA [38,39].lMaximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40].mMaximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) recommended by USEPA [39,41].doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t003

Table 4. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium asnitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across155 sample locations on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California.

Key Grazing Area Recreation Area No Concentrated Use Activities

(462 samples) (125 samples) (156 samples)

FC (cfu 100 ml21) 87612 a 5569 b 90612 a

E. coli (cfu 100 ml21) 4266 a 2967 b 4368 a

Total N (mg L21) 6164 a 3863 b 6466 a

NO3-N (mg L21) 1761 ab 1661 a 2562 b

NH4-N (mg L21) 1160.6 a 1061 a 1060.7 a

Total P (mg L21) 2464 a 1464 a 1762 a

PO4-P (mg L21) 760.3 a 560.2 b 860.6 a

Results reported are mean concentration for each resource use activity category. The ‘6’ indicates 1 standard error of the mean. Different lower case letters indicatesignificant (P,0.05 with Bonferroni-correction for multiple comparisons) differences between resource use activity categories.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t004



differences between 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and

sample sites with no concentrated resource use; and 2) occurrence

of stagnant-low stream flow, turbid stream water, cattle, and

recreation at the time of sample collection. We used GLMMs to

analyze dependent variables with overdisperison (i.e., greater

variance than expected) (fecal coliform, E. coli, TN) using the

Poisson probability distribution function with robust standard

errors [44]. For the GLMMs, we specified allotment identity and

sample site identity as sequential random effects to account for

hierarchical nesting and repeated measures [44,45]. Data with

evidence of both overdispersion and zero-inflation can be

produced by either unobserved heterogeneity or by processes that

involve different mechanisms generating zero and nonzero counts

[46–48]. For dependent variables with apparent overdispersion

and zero-inflation (.25% zeros; NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4-

P), we used likelihood ratio tests to evaluate relative fits of zero-

inflated negative binomial versus zero-inflated Poisson models

[46–48]; we used simple Vuong tests [49] to evaluate relative fits of

zero-inflated versus standard count models; and we used either

likelihood ratio tests or Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), as

appropriate, to compare relative fits between negative binomial

and Poisson models. To account for the within-cluster correlation

due to repeated measures, we specified sample site identity as a

clustering variable in the final models to obtain robust variance

estimates [50].

We also examined allotment-scale relationships of FIB and

nutrient concentrations with environmental conditions and

grazing management. We used bivariate zero-truncated count

models to test associations between mean allotment values of

response variables (fecal coliform, E. coli, TN, NO3-N, NH4-N,

TP, and PO4-P; mean of all samples collected for each allotment)

and cattle grazing duration, animal unit months (AUM) of grazing,

cattle density as cow-calf pairs 100 ha21, mean allotment

elevation, and 2011–2012 water year precipitation [42] (indepen-

dent variables). We used likelihood ratio tests to compare Poisson

and negative binomial models [48]. For all analyses, when multiple

response variables were predicted with the same independent

variables, we interpreted significance levels using Bonferroni

corrections to safeguard against Type I errors. Bonferroni adjusted

p-values were considered significant at 0.0071 (dividing P= 0.05

by the 7 water quality indicators tested) and 0.0014 (dividing

P= 0.01 by the 7 water quality indicators tested). All statistical

analyses were conducted in Stata/SE 11.1 [48].

Results

Surface Water Quality and Weather Conditions Observedduring StudyPrecipitation during the 2010–11 water year ranged from 88 to

173% of the 30-year mean annual precipitation for each

allotment, with 11 of 12 allotments receiving over 100% of mean

annual precipitation (Table S1). Overall, nutrient concentrations

were low across the study area (Table 1). With the exception of

TN, over 32% of samples were below minimum detection limits

for all nutrients (,10 mg N L21 and ,5 mg P L21). Nitrogen

concentrations increased in October and November with the onset

of fall rains (Fig. 2), and phosphorus concentrations showed no

seasonal patterns (data not shown). The sum of NO3-N and NH4-

N concentrations was lower than organic N (TN – [NO3-N+NH4-

N]) concentrations throughout the sampling season (Fig. 2),

suggesting that the majority of nitrogen was in organic forms.

Additionally, PO4-P concentrations were much lower than TP

(Table 1; Fig. 3), suggesting that the majority of phosphorus was

either organic or inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments.

Mean and maximum FC and E. coli concentrations per allotment

ranged from 30 to 255 and 17 to 151 CFU 100 ml21, and from

248 to 3,460 and 74 to 1,920, respectively (Table S2). FIB

concentrations were highest from August through October (Fig. 4).

Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to WaterQuality BenchmarksMean and median NO3-N, TP, and PO4-P concentrations were

at least one order of magnitude below nutrient concentrations

recommended to avoid eutrophication (Table 1). No samples

exceeded the NO3-N maximum recommendation (Table 1).

Overall, less than 2% of samples exceeded eutrophication

Table 5. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium asnitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across155 sample locations on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California.

Low Stream Flowa Turbid Waterb Cattle Presentc Recreationd Activities Observede

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

No. Occurrences 51 692 37 706 130 613 28 715 341 402

FC (cfu 100 ml21) 216667** 7267 212664** 7668 205639** 5665 36613 8468 115616** 5466

E. coli (cfu 100 ml21) 114645* 3563 142656** 3563 115621** 2463 1465* 4164 6169* 2363

Total N (mg L21) 87616 5563 95612 5663 4464 6063 2763** 5963 4863 6564

NO3-N (mg L21) 1763 1961 1961 1663 1962 1861 1663 1961 1761 2061

NH4-N (mg L21) 1563 1060.4 1060.4 1362 961 1160.5 760.7** 1160.4 1060.6 1160.5

Total P (mg L21) 3065 2063 107637** 1662 2063 2163 1062 2163 2766* 1561

PO4-P (mg L21) 1362** 760.2 1162** 760.2 1061* 660.2 660.5** 760.3 760.5 560.3

Results are reported by category of field observation of resource use activities and environmental conditions observed at the time of sample collection. The ‘6’ indicates1 standard error of the mean, * indicates different at P,0.05 (Bonferroni-adjusted), and ** indicates different at P,0.01 (Bonferroni-adjusted).aStagnant or low stream flow (,2 liters per second).bStream water turbid.cCattle observed.dRecreational activities only (i.e., no cattle present) observed.eAny activities (low stream flow, turbid water, precipitation, cattle, or recreation) observed that potentially impact water quality.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t005



benchmarks (Table 2), and less than 8% of sites exceeded these

benchmarks at least once (Table 3). Mean and median TN, NO3-

N, and TP concentrations were at or below estimated background

concentrations for the study area (Table 1). The percentage of all

samples (Table 2) exceeding FIB benchmarks ranged from 50%

(benchmark FC=20 cfu 100 ml21) to 1% (benchmark E.

coli=410 cfu 100 ml21), while the percentage of sites (Table 3)

that exceeded a FIB benchmark at least once ranged from 83%

(benchmark FC=20 cfu 100 ml21) to 6% (benchmark E.

coli=410 cfu 100 ml21).

Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to Grazing,Recreation, and Field ObservationsNutrient concentrations were at or below background levels,

and only 0–10% of sites within each resource use activity category

(i.e., key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non-concentrated use

activities) had at least one nutrient benchmark exceedance

(Table 3). The relative percentage of samples and sites exceeding

FIB benchmarks for key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non-

concentrated use areas varied by the individual benchmarks

(Tables 2 and 3).

We found significantly (P,0.002) lower FC, E. coli, TN and

PO4-P concentrations at recreation areas than at key grazing areas

and areas with no concentrated use activities (Table 4). Mean

NO3-N concentrations were also significantly lower (P,0.001) at

recreation sites than at areas with no concentrated use activity;

however, it is important to note that all nutrient concentrations

were at or below background levels (Table 1), and none of the sites

sampled ever exceeded the maximum recommended NO3-N

concentrations during the study (Tables 3).

Relative to conditions at time of sample collection, FC, E. coli,

and PO4-P concentrations were significantly (P,0.0071) higher

when stream flow was low or stagnant, stream water was turbid,

and when cattle were actively observed (Table 5). TP concentra-

tions were also significantly higher (P,0.001) under turbid water

Figure 5. Trends in overall mean fecal indicator bacteria concentrations across sample sites during the June through November2011sample period on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinalstudy. There were no significant relationships between allotment cattle stocking density and mean allotment concentrations of (A) E. coli (P.0.9)and (B) fecal coliform (P.0.3). During the study period, there were also no significant relationships between 2010–2011 water year precipitation andmean allotment concentrations of (C) E. coli (P.0.6) and (D) fecal coliform (P.0.5).doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g005



conditions. E. coli, TN, NH4-N, and PO4-P concentrations were

significantly lower (P,0.006) when recreation activities were

observed at time of sampling, compared to sample events when

recreation was not occurring (Table 5). Occurrence of high to

moderate cover (.20% of substrate cover) of algae, periphyton,

and other aquatic organisms at time of sampling was low (,2% of

samples).

Allotment-scale Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relativeto Grazing Management and Environmental ConditionsMean allotment-scale nutrient concentrations were not signif-

icantly related (at Bonferroni adjusted P,0.0071) to cattle density

(TN: P=0.3; NO3-N: P=0.2; NH4-N: P=0.2; TP: P=0.3; PO4-

P: P=0.1), precipitation (TN: P=0.09; NO3-N: P=0.07; NH4-N:

P=0.73; TP: P=0.3; PO4-P: P=0.04), mean allotment elevation

(TN: P=0.02; NO3-N: P=0.4; NH4-N: P=0.07; TP: P=0.5;

PO4-P: P=0.2), AUM (TN: P=0.6; NO3-N: P=0.5; NH4-N:

P=0.9; TP: P=0.1; PO4-P: P=0.6), or grazing duration (TN:

P=0.02; NO3-N: P=0.5; NH4-N: P=0.03; TP: P=0.6; PO4-P:

P=0.6).

Mean allotment E. coli and FC concentrations showed

increasing trends with increasing cattle densities and AUMs, and

decreasing trends with increasing precipitation; however, these

relationships were not statistically significant (P.0.2; Fig. 5). Mean

allotment elevation (P.0.8), and cattle grazing duration (P.0.7)

were also not correlated to mean allotment FIB concentrations

(data not shown).

Discussion

Nutrient Conditions Relative to Water QualityBenchmarksMean and median nutrient concentrations observed across this

grazed landscape were well below eutrophication benchmarks and

background estimates (Table 1) [38–43]. Observed peak values in

nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were largely organic (or

inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments) (Figs. 2 and 3),

which are not considered readily available to stimulate primary

production and eutrophication [39,51]. These results do not

support concerns that excessive nutrient pollution is degrading

surface waters on these USFS grazing allotments [4,12]. Our

nutrient results are consistent with other examinations of surface

water quality in similarly grazed landscapes. In the Sierra Nevada,

Roche et al. [14] found nutrient concentrations of surface waters

within key cattle grazing areas (mountain meadows) to be at least

an order of magnitude below levels of ecological or biological

concern for sensitive amphibians. On the Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest in northeastern Oregon, Adams et al. [52] also

reported nutrient levels to be at or below minimum detection

levels in surface waters at key grazing areas.

Our results also agree with other studies of nutrient dynamics in

the study area [53,54]. Headwater streams, such as those draining

the study allotments, typically make up 85% of total basin scale

drainage network length, have high morphological complexity,

and high surface to volume ratios–which make them particularly

effective at nutrient processing and retention [55]. Leonard et al

[54] found that drainages in the western Tahoe Basin recovering

from past disturbances and undergoing secondary succession tend

to act as sinks for nutrients. Several studies have reported nutrient

limitations across montane and subalpine systems resulting in low

riverine nutrient export [56].

FIB Concentrations Relative to Water Quality BenchmarksOverall mean and median E. coli were 40 and 8 cfu 100 ml21,

and mean and median FC were 82 and 21 cfu 100 ml21 (Table

S2)– indicating that the nationally recommended E. coli FIB-basedbenchmarks would be broadly met, and that the more restrictive,

FC FIB-based regional water quality benchmarks would be

commonly exceeded across the study region. Clearly, assessments

of microbial water quality and human health risks are dependent

upon which FIB benchmarks are used for evaluation (Tables 2 and

3).

The scientific and policy communities are currently evaluating

the utility of, and guidance for, FIB-based water quality objective

effectiveness for safe-guarding recreational waters. As reviewed in

Field and Samadpour [8], E. coli and FC are not always ideal

indicators of fecal contamination and risk to human health from

microbial pathogens. Poor correlations between bacterial indica-

tors and pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Giardia spp., Cryptospo-ridium spp., and human viruses undermine the utility of these

bacteria as indicators of pathogen occurrence and human health risk

[8]. The ability of FIB to establish extra-intestinal, non-animal,

non-human associated environmental strains and to grow and

reproduce in water, soil sediments, algal wrack, and plant cavities

also erodes their utility as indicators of animal or human fecal

contamination [8]. Citing scientific advancements in the past two

decades, the USEPA now recommends adoption of an indicator E.coli water quality objective as an improvement over previously

used general indicators, including FC [34]. This guidance is based,

in part, on E. coli exhibiting relatively fewer of the fecal indicator

bacteria utility issues listed above, and on evidence that E. coli is abetter predictor of gastro-intestinal illness than FC. Therefore,

comparing our results to the most relevant and scientifically

defensible E. coli FIB-based recommendations, 17% of all sites

exceeded the 190 cfu 100 ml21 benchmark, and 14% of all sites

exceeded the 235 cfu 100 ml21 benchmark [34]. This analysis,

based on the best available science and USEPA guidance, clearly

contrasts with the FC FIB-based interpretations currently in use by

several regional regulatory programs, which suggest that as many

as 83% of all sites in our study present potential human health

risks.

Temporal Patterns in Water QualityWe observed a marked increase in total nitrogen concentrations

in October and November, driven primarily by increased organic

nitrogen, and to a lesser extent NO3-N (Fig. 2). This coincided

with the first rainfall-runoff events of fall that initiated flushing of

solutes and particulates. The annual fall flush occurs subsequent to

the summer drought and base flow period during which organic

and inorganic nutrient compounds accumulate in soil and forest

litter [54,57–60]. The disparity between TN and inorganic

nitrogen (NO3-N+NH4-N) indicates the majority of flushed

nitrogen was either particulate or dissolved organic nitrogen

(Fig. 2). Consequently, most of the nitrogen flushed was likely in a

relatively biologically unavailable form [51], with limited risk

(relative to inorganic forms) of stimulating primary production and

eutrophication. However, in nitrogen limited systems, increased

biological utilization of organic nitrogen can occur [61].

FIB concentrations were highest from August through October

(Fig. 4), which coincides with the period of maximum number of

cattle turned out (Table S1). There is clear evidence that FIB

concentrations increase with the introduction of cattle into a

landscape, and increase with increasing cattle numbers [62–65].

The observed seasonal pattern of peak FIB concentrations also

tracks the progression of stream flow from high, cold spring

snowmelt to low, warm late-summer base flow conditions. Warm,



low-flow conditions have been associated with elevated FIB [66–

68]. Across this region, stream water temperatures are at their

annual maximum in August and stream flows are at their annual

minimum in September [69,70]. We observed stagnant-low flow

conditions to be significantly associated with increased FIB

concentrations (Table 5). It is likely that the seasonal peak of

FIB concentrations is driven by timing of maximum annual cattle

numbers, as well as optimal environmental conditions for growth

and in-stream retention of both animal-derived and environmental

bacteria (e.g., wildlife sources) [71–73]. Similar temporal trends in

FIB concentrations have been observed in surface waters of

Oregon, Wyoming, and Alaska [65,74,75].

Water Quality, Grazing, Recreation, and EnvironmentalConditionsMean FIB concentrations at key grazing and non-concentrated

use areas were higher than recreation sites, but did not exceed

USEPA E. coli FIB-based benchmarks (Table 4). Mean FIB

concentrations for all resource use activity categories exceeded the

most restrictive regional FC FIB-based benchmarks of 20 and

50 cfu 100 ml21. E. coli FIB-based benchmark comparisons were

generally comparable across sites, with recreation sites exhibiting

overall lower numbers of exceedances; however, the different FC

FIB-based benchmark comparisons indicated inconsistent results

for water quality conditions across sites (Table 3). Similar to other

surveys in the region [6,12,13], FIB concentrations were

significantly greater when cattle were present at time of sample

collection (Table 5). Tiedemann et al. [65] observed the same

trend, with higher stream water FC concentrations on forested

watersheds experiencing relatively intensive cattle grazing com-

pared to ungrazed watersheds. Gary et al. [63] found grazing to

have relatively minor impacts on water quality, though a

statistically significant increase in stream water FC concentrations

was induced at a relatively high stocking rate.

Mean allotment FIB concentrations showed apparent increasing

trends with greater cattle densities (Fig. 5A and 5B); however,

these allotment-level relationships were not statistically significant.

Decreasing cattle density lowers fecal-microbial pollutant loading

[76], which has been shown to reduce FIB concentrations in runoff

from grazed landscapes [77]. Decreasing cattle density may also

reduce stream bed disturbance and re-suspension of FIB-sediment

associations by cattle [78–82]. Attracted to streams for shade,

water, and riparian forage, cattle have been shown to spend

approximately 5% of their day within or adjacent to a stream [63],

depositing about 1.5% of their total fecal matter within one meter

of a stream [83]. In a comprehensive review, George et al. [19]

found that management practices that reduce livestock densities,

residence time, and fecal and urine deposition in streams and

riparian areas can reduce nutrient and microbial pollutant loading

of surface water.

Samples associated with turbid stream water at the time of

sample collection had significantly higher mean FIB concentra-

tions than samples associated with non-turbid conditions (Table 5).

It has been well documented that stream sediments contain higher

concentrations of FIB than overlying waters [78–80,82], and that

re-suspension of sediments in the water column by factors such as

cattle disturbance or elevated stream flow is associated with

elevated water column FIB concentrations [81]. FIB concentra-

tions were also significantly higher under stagnant-low flow

conditions (Table 5). Schnabel et al. [75] found a negative

correlation between stream discharge and FIB concentrations at

some sites, possibly due to the absence of a dilution effect under

low flow conditions.

Although not statistically significant, we observed decreasing

mean allotment FIB concentrations with greater precipitation

during the 2010–2011 water-year (October 1 to September 30)

(Fig. 5C and 5D). It is likely that precipitation during the 2010–

2011 water-year is primarily reflecting snowpack, which supported

higher than historical stream flow volumes during the study

period. This potential relationship possibly reflects capacity of

higher base flow volumes to dilute FIB concentrations. Lewis et al.

[84] observed a similar negative correlation between surface runoff

FC concentrations and annual cumulative precipitation on

California coastal dairy pastures. Our observation that maximum

FIB concentrations occurred under stagnant-low flow conditions

(Table 5) also supports the potential for a negative relationship

between FIB concentrations and annual precipitation.

Our results do not support previous concerns of widespread

microbial water quality pollution across these grazed landscapes,

as concluded in other surveys [6,12,13]. Although we did find

apparent trends between cattle density and FIB concentrations

(Figs. 5A and 5B) and significantly greater FIB concentrations

when cattle were actively present, only 16% and 13% (Table 3) of

key grazing areas (n = 97) exceeded the E. coli FIB-based

benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m21 and 235 cfu 100 m21, respec-

tively. Only 5 and 3% of total samples collected exceeded the E.

coli FIB-based benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m21 and 235 cfu

100 m21, respectively (Table 2). In contrast, Derlet et al. [6]

reported 60% and 53% of cattle grazing sites (n = 15) exceeded the

190 cfu 100 m21 and 235 cfu 100 m21 benchmarks, respectively.

We also found no significant differences in FIB concentrations

among key grazing areas and areas of no concentrated use

activities (Table 4), which contrasts with previous work in the

Sierra Nevada [6,12]. Finally, in this landscape of mixed livestock

grazing and recreational uses, we found FIB concentrations to be

lowest at recreation sites, indicating that water recreation

objectives can be broadly attained within these grazing allotments.

There are three important distinctions that separate our study

from previous work: 1) in reaching our conclusions, we compared

our study results to regulatory and background water quality

benchmarks, which are based on current and best available science

and policy; 2) these co-occurring land-use activities were directly

compared on the same land units managed by a single agency

(USFS), as opposed to previous comparisons between these land-

uses occurring on different management units administered by

different agencies with very different land-use histories and policies

(e.g., USFS and U.S. National Park Service); and 3) to date, this

study is the most comprehensive water quality survey in existence

for National Forest public grazing lands, including an assessment

of seven water quality indicators at 155 sites across five National

Forests.

ConclusionsNutrient concentrations observed across this extensively grazed

landscape were at least one order of magnitude below levels of

ecological concern, and were similar to USEPA estimates for

background conditions in the region. Late season total nitrogen

concentrations increased across all study allotments due to a first

flush of organic nitrogen associated with onset of fall rainfall-runoff

events, as is commonly observed in California’s Mediterranean

climate. Similar to previous work, we found greater FIB

concentrations when cattle were present; however, we did not

find overall significant differences in FIB concentrations between

key grazing areas and non-concentrated use areas, and all but the

most restrictive, FC FIB-based regional water quality benchmarks

were broadly met across the study region. Although many regional

regulatory programs utilize the FC FIB-based standards, the



USEPA clearly states–citing the best available science–E. coli are

better indicators of fecal contamination and therefore provide a

more accurate assessment of water quality conditions and human

health risks. Throughout the study period, the USEPA recom-

mended E. coli benchmarks of 190 and 235 cfu 100 ml21 were met

at over 83% of sites. These results suggest cattle grazing,

recreation, and clean water can be compatible goals across these

national forest lands.

Supporting Information

Table S1 Geographic characteristics, study year pre-cipitation, cattle grazing management, and water qual-ity sample collection sites and sample numbers for 12U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northernCalifornia enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinalstudy of stream water quality between June andNovember 2011.(DOCX)

Table S2 Mean, median, and maximum fecal coliform(FC) and E. coli concentrations for 743 stream water

samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S.Forest Service grazing allotments in northern Califor-

nia. All concentrations are reported as colony forming units per

100 ml of sample water (cfu 100 ml21).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and staff from the Klamath, Shasta-

Trinity, Plumas, Tahoe, and Stanislaus National Forests for their assistance

with study plan development and field data collection; Tom Lushinsky,

D.J. Eastburn, Natalie Wegner, Donna Dutra, Mark Noyes, and Xien

Wang for lab sample processing; University of California Cooperative

Extension and USFS District Rangers and Forest Supervisors who

provided lab space; and Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and three anonymous

reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments on this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: KWT ERA RAD. Performed

the experiments: KWT. Analyzed the data: LMR KWT. Contributed

reagents/materials/analysis tools: KWT RAD. Wrote the paper: LMR LK

ERA RAD KWT.

References

1. Gentner BJ, Tanaka JA (2002) Classifying federal public land grazing permittees.J Range Manage 55: 2–11.

2. Huntsinger L, Forero LC, Sulak A (2010) Transhumance and pastoralistresilience in the Western United States. Pastoralism 1: 9–36.

3. Sulak A, Huntsinger L (2002) The importance of federal grazing allotments tocentral Sierran oak woodland permittees: A first approximation. In: StandifordRB, editor. Fifth symposium on oak woodlands: Oaks in California’s changinglandscape, PSW-GTR-184. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service PacificSouthwest Research Station. 43–51.

4. Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S (1999) Survey of livestock influences on streamand riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J Soil Water Conserv 54:419–431.

5. Brunson MW, Steel BS (1996) Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs aboutfederal rangeland management. J Range Manage 49: 69–75.

6. Derlet RW, Carlson JR (2006) Coliform bacteria in Sierra Nevada wildernesslakes and streams: What is the impact of backpackers, pack animals, and cattle?J Wilderness Med 17: 15–20.

7. Taylor FR, Gillman LA, Pedretti JW (1989) Impact of cattle on 2 isolated fishpopulations in Pahranagat Valley, Nevada. Great Basin Nat 49: 491–495.

8. Field KG, Samadpour M (2007) Fecal source tracking, the indicator paradigm,and managing water quality. Water Res 41: 3517–3538.

9. Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, et al. (2009)Controlling eutrophication: Nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323: 1014–1015.

10. USFS (2011) Grazing statistical summary fiscal year 2009. Washington, D.C.:USDA Forest Service. 108 p.

11. USFS (2012) National visitor use monitoring results - USDA Forest Servicenational summary report. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 31 p.

12. Derlet RW, Richards JR, Tanaka LL, Hayden C, Ger KA, et al. (2012) Impactof summer cattle grazing on the Sierra Nevada watershed: Aquatic algae andbacteria. J Env Pub Health 2012: 1–7.

13. Myers L, Whited B (2012) The impact of cattle grazing in high elevation SierraNevada mountain meadows over widely variable annual climatic conditions.J Env Protection 3: 823–837.

14. Roche LM, Allen-Diaz B, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing andYosemite toad (Bufo canorus Camp) breeding habitat in Sierra Nevada meadows.Rangeland Ecol Manag 65: 56–65.

15. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Anderson M, Johnson J, et al. (2005)Land use and land cover influence on water quality in the last free-flowing riverdraining the western Sierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 313: 234–247.

16. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Staff (2008) Soil SurveyGeographic Database (SSURGO). Available: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/. Accessed 2013 May 31.

17. USFS (2009) CALVEG 2000, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest RegionRemote Sensing Lab website. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/gis/data/vegcovs/cvalley/EvegTile33A_00_07_100k_v2.html. Accessed 2013May 31.

18. Delcurto T, Porath M, Parsons CT, Morrison JA (2005) Management strategiesfor sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the PacificNorthwest. Rangeland Ecol Manag 58: 119–127.

19. George MR, Jackson RD, Boyd CS, Tate KW (2011) A scientific assessment ofthe effectiveness of riparian management practices. In: Bridke DD, editor.Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendations,and knowledge gaps. Lawrence: Allen Press. 213–252.

20. Clary WP, Leininger WC (2000) Stubble height as a tool for management of

riparian areas. J Range Manage 53: 562–573.

21. BLM (1999) Utilization studies and residual measurements. Denver: USDI

Bureau of Land Management. 174 p.

22. USFS (1988) Plumas National Forest land and resource management plan

website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/plumas/landmanagement.

Accessed 2013 May 23.

23. USFS (1990) Tahoe National Forest land and resource management plan

website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tahoe/landmanagement. Ac-

cessed 2013 May 23.

24. USFS (1995) Shasta-Trinity National Forest land and resource management

plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/

planning. Accessed 2013 May 23.

25. USFS (2004) 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment record of decision.

Vallejo, California: USDA Forest Service. 72 p.

26. USFS (2010) Klamath National Forest land and resource management plan

website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/


27. USFS (2010) Stanislaus National Forest land and resource management plan

website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stanislaus/landmanagement/


28. Dahlgren RA, Tate KW, Ahearn DS (2004) Watershed scale, water quality

monitoring – water sample collection. In: Down RD, Lehr JH, editors.

Environmental instrumentation and analysis handbook. New York: John Wiley

and Sons. 547–564.

29. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE, Franson MAH (2005)

Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater: Centennial

edition. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association. 1368 p.

30. Yu ZS, Northup RR, Dahlgren RA (1994) Determination of dissolved organic

nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate-

nitrogen. Commun Soil Sci Plan 25: 3161–3169.

31. Doane TA, Horwath WR (2003) Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate

with a single reagent. Anal Lett 36: 2713–2722.

32. Verdouw H, Vanechteld CJA, Dekkers EMJ (1978) Ammonia determination

based on indophenol formation with sodium salicylate. Water Res 12: 399–402.

33. Puckett M (2002) Quality assurance management plan for the state of

California’s surface water ambient monitoring program. Surface Water Ambient

Monitoring Program website. Available: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_

issues/programs/swamp/tools.shtml. Accessed 2013 May 23.

34. USEPA (2012) Recreational water quality criteria. Washington D.C.: US

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

73 p.

35. CVRWQCB (2011) The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley region.

Sacramento: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 148 p.

36. LRWQCB (2005) Water quality control plan for the Lahontan region. South

Lake Tahoe: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. 55 p.

37. NCRWQCB (2011) Water quality control plan for the North Coast region.

Santa Rosa: North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 13 p.

38. Cline C (1973) The effects of forest fertilization on the Tahuya River, Kitsap

Peninsula, Washington. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology.

55 p.



39. MacDonald LH, Smart AW, Wissmar RC (1991) Monitoring guidelines toevaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest andAlaska, EPA 910/9–91–001. Seattle: US Environmental Protection Agency.180 p.

40. Mackenthun KM (1973) Toward a cleaner aquatic environment. Washington,D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency. 289 p.

41. USEPA (1986) Quality criteria for water: 1986. Washington, D.C.: USEnvironmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards.477 p.

42. USEPA (1987) Surface water monitoring: A framework for change. Washington,D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations andStandards. 41 p.

43. USEPA (2000) Ambient water quality criteria recommendations: Rivers andstreams in Ecoregion II. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 120 p.

44. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling usingstata. College Station: Stata Press. 562 p.

45. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. NewYork: Springer-Verlag. 528 p.

46. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

47. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependentvariables. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

48. StataCorp (2009) Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station:StataCorp LP.

49. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nestedhypotheses. Econometrica 57: 307–333.

50. Williams RL (2000) A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlateddata. Biometrics 56: 645–646.

51. Campbell JL, Hornbeck JW, McDowell WH, Buso DC, Shanley JB, et al. (2000)Dissolved organic nitrogen budgets for upland, forested ecosystems in NewEngland. Biogeochemistry 49: 123–142.

52. Adams MJ, Pearl CA, McCreary B, Galvan SK, Wessell SJ, et al. (2009) Short-term effect of cattle exclosures on Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris)populations and habitat in northeastern Oregon. J Herpetol 43: 132–138.

53. Green MB, Fritsen CH (2006) Spatial variation of nutrient balance in theTruckee River, California-Nevada. J Am Water Resour As 42: 659–674.

54. Leonard RL, Kaplan LA, Elder JF, Coats RN, Goldman CR (1979) Nutrienttransport in surface runoff from a subalpine watershed, Lake Tahoe Basin,California. Ecol Monogr 49: 281–310.

55. Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL, et al. (2001)Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86–90.

56. Hill BH, McCormick FH, Harvey BC, Johnson SL, Warren ML, et al. (2010)Microbial enzyme activity, nutrient uptake and nutrient limitation in forestedstreams. Freshwater Biol 55: 1005–1019.

57. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Keller KE (2004) Temporal dynamicsof stream water chemistry in the last free-flowing river draining the westernSierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 295: 47–63.

58. Bernal S, Butturini A, Sabater F (2005) Seasonal variations of dissolved nitrogenand DOC : DON ratios in an intermittent Mediterranean stream. Biogeochem-istry 75: 351–372.

59. Miller WW, Johnson DW, Denton C, Verburg PSJ, Dana GL, et al. (2005)Inconspicuous nutrient laden surface runoff from mature forest Sierranwatersheds. Water Air Soil Poll 163: 3–17.

60. van Verseveld WJ, McDonnell JJ, Lajtha K (2008) A mechanistic assessment ofnutrient flushing at the catchment scale. J Hydrol 358: 268–287.

61. Kaushal SS, Lewis WM (2005) Fate and transport of organic nitrogen inminimally disturbed montane streams of Colorado, USA. Biogeochemistry 74:303–321.

62. Doran JW, Schepers JS, Swanson NP (1981) Chemical and bacteriologicalquality of pasture runoff. J Soil Water Conserv 36: 166–171.

63. Gary HL, Johnson SR, Ponce SL (1983) Cattle grazing impact on surface-waterquality in a Colorado Front Range stream. J Soil Water Conserv 38: 124–128.

64. Schepers JS, Francis DD (1982) Chemical water-quality of runoff from grazingland in Nebraska. 1. Influence of grazing livestock. J Environ Qual 11: 351–354.

65. Tiedemann AR, Higgins DA, Quigley TM, Sanderson HR, Marx DB (1987)Responses of fecal-coliform in streamwater to 4 grazing strategies. J RangeManage 40: 322–329.

66. Allan JD (1995) Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters.London: Chapman & Hall. 388 p.

67. Edwards DR, Coyne MS, Daniel TC, Vendrell PF, Murdoch JF, et al. (1997)Indicator bacteria concentrations of two northwest Arkansas streams in relationto flow and season. T ASAE 40: 103–109.

68. Lau YL, Liu D (1993) Effect of flow-rate on biofilm accumulation in openchannels. Water Res 27: 355–360.

69. Krupa M, Tate KW, Van Kessel C, Sarwar N, Linquist B (2011) Water qualityin rice-growing watersheds in a Mediterranean climate. Agr Ecosyst Environ144: 290–301.

70. Tate KW, Lancaster DL, Lile DF (2007) Assessment of thermal stratificationwithin stream pools as a mechanism to provide refugia for native trout in hot,arid rangelands. Environ Monit Assess 124: 289–300.

71. Alm EW, Burke J, Hagan E (2006) Persistence and potential growth of the fecalindicator bacteria, Escherichia coli, in shoreline sand at Lake Huron. J Great LakesRes 32: 401–405.

72. Byappanahalli MN, Whitman RL, Shively DA, Ting WTE, Tseng CC, et al.(2006) Seasonal persistence and population characteristics of Escherichia coli andenterococci in deep backshore sand of two freshwater beaches. J Water Health 4:313–320.

73. Roszak DB, Colwell RR (1987) Survival strategies of bacteria in the natural-environment. Microbiol Rev 51: 365–379.

74. Clark ML, Norris JR (2000) Occurrence of fecal coliform bacteria in selectedstreams in Wyoming,1990–99: Water resources investigations report 00–4198.Cheyenne: US Geological Survey. 8 p.

75. Schnabel WE, Wilson T, Edwards R, Stahnke G, Maselko M, et al. (2010)Variability, seasonality, and persistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a cold-region, urban stream. J Cold Reg Eng 24: 54–75.

76. Roche LM, Latimer AM, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing andconservation of a meadow-dependent amphibian species in the Sierra Nevada.PloS One 7: 1–11.

77. Knox AK, Tate KW, Dahgren RA, Atwill ER (2007) Management reduces E.coli in irrigated pasture runoff. Calif Agr 61: 159–165.

78. Jamieson R, Joy DM, Lee H, Kostaschuk R, Gordon R (2005) Transport anddeposition of sediment-associated Escherichia coli in natural streams. Water Res39: 2665–2675.

79. Jamieson RC, Gordon RJ, Tattrie SC, Stratton GW (2003) Sources andpersistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a rural watershed. Water Qual Res J Can38: 33–47.

80. Sherer BM, Miner JR, Moore JA, Buckhouse JC (1992) Indicator bacterialsurvival in stream sediments. J Environ Qual 21: 591–595.

81. Stephenson GR, Rychert RC (1982) Bottom sediment - a reservoir of Escherichia-coli in rangeland streams. J Range Manage 35: 119–123.

82. Van Donsel DJ, Geldreich EE (1971) Relationships of Salmonellae to fecalcoliforms in bottom sediments. Water Res 5: 1079–1087.

83. Porath ML, Momont PA, DelCurto T, Rimbey NR, Tanaka JA, et al. (2002)Offstream water and trace mineral salt as management strategies for improvedcattle distribution. J Anim Sci 80: 346–356.

84. Lewis DJ, Atwill ER, Lennox MS, Pereira MDG, Miller WA, et al. (2009)Reducing microbial contamination in storm runoff from high use areas onCalifornia coastal dairies. Water Sci Technol 60: 1731–1743.



APPENDIX B

TITLE 22 MONITORING RESULTS

(2011 – 2015)

B-1

Table B-1: Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER

Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date

Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 34 ND 170 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Barium 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Fluoride 2 mg/L 4 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014

Hexavalent chromium 0.01 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Sep. 2014

Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Nitrate (as NO3) 45 mg/L 5 0.05 ND 0.23 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.1 ND 0.51 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Perchlorate 0.006 mg/L 6 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

RADIOACTIVITY SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER


Gross Alpha particle

activity

15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2012

B-2

VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER


Benzene 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.013 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Styrene 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 0.156 ND 0.78 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Toluene 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-

Trifluoroethane

1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

B-3

NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS

(SOCS) SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER


Alachlor 0.002 mg/L 1 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2014

Atrazine 0.001 mg/L 1 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2014

Simazine 0.004 mg/L 1 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2014

SECONDARY STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER

Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date

Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 34 ND 170 ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Color 15 units 43 15.3 5 68 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 156 ND 380 ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Manganese 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Odor—Threshold 3 units 43 1.0 ND 1 TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Thiobencarb 0.001 mg/L

Turbidity 5 units 5 2.4 0.32 7.7 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Zinc 5 mg/L 5 13.8 ND 69 ug/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 62.2 44 76 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 11 62 45.7 87 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Chloride 250 mg/L 4 2.2 1.9 2.4 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014

Sulfate 250 mg/L 4 1.1 0.86 1.5 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014

MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY

STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER

Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date

Bicarbonate alkalinity

4 22.8 22 24 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2014

Calcium

8 5.7 3.9 9.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Carbonate Alkalinity

5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Hardness

5 29.8 24 44 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Hydroxide alkalinity


Magnesium

8 2.5 1.3 4.9 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

pH

5 7.5 7.2 7.66 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Sodium 5 3.1 2.7 3.5 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

B-4

Table B-2: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER


Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND MFL Mar. 2013





Cyanide 0.15 mg/L

Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Hexavalent chromium 0.01 mg/L






Perchlorate 0.006 mg/L



B-5

SECONDARY STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER


Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Color 15 units 5 ND ND ND units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Manganese 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Dec. 2015

Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 0.8 ND 1 TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Turbidity 5 units 5 0.288 ND 0.96 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Zinc 5 mg/L 5 56.2 ND 82 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 58.2 49 65 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 5 71.5 57.8 82 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 1.25 0.86 1.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER



5 27 20 45 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Calcium

8 6.09 3.8 10 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Hardness

5 32.2 22 52 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Magnesium

8 2.71 1.2 6.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

pH

5 7.67 7.5 7.83 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


B-6

Table B-3: Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water for the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER


Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 28 ND 140 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND Oct. 2012





Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 0.124 0.1 0.18 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015









RADIOACTIVITY JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER



activity

15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2012

B-7

VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER


Benzene 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015





1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Styrene 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Toluene 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Trifluoroethane

1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

B-8

NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS

(SOCS) JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER


Alachlor 0.002 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2014

Atrazine 0.001 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2014

Simazine 0.004 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2014

SECONDARY STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER


Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 28 ND 140 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Color 15 units 6 15.8 10 22 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 64 ND 210 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Manganese 0.05 mg/L 13 409 45 1100 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Dec. 2015


Odor—Threshold 3 units 6 1 ND 2 TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Turbidity 5 units 5 2.3 1.5 4.3 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Zinc 5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 125 104 165 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 11 183 150 224 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Jun. 2015


Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 15.4 11 21 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER



6 71.2 60 90 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Calcium

7 19.4 17 23 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Hardness

5 82.8 66 107 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Magnesium

8 8.4 6.3 13 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

pH

5 7.6 7.5 7.8 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


B-9

Table B-4: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER


Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND MFL Aug. 2013





Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 0.128 0.11 0.14 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015








B-10

SECONDARY STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER


Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Color 15 units 6 3 3 3 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Iron 0.3 mg/L 6 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Manganese 0.05 mg/L 61 5.9 ND 47 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Dec. 2015

Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 ND ND ND TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Turbidity 5 units 5 0.046 ND 0.23 NTU Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Zinc 5 mg/L 5 14 ND 70 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 133 99 202 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 5 198 169 237 µS/cm Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 15.8 11 22 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER



5 72 60 90 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

Calcium

7 19.4 15 24 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Hardness

5 89.2 75 111 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015



Magnesium

8 8.7 6 12 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

pH

5 7.6 7.5 7.7 units Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015


B-11

Table B-5: Title 22 Analysis of Raw Water from the Calaveras River Intake for the Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER


Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 54 ND 150 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Barium 1 mg/L 5 23.9 20.8 28.5 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 0.2 ND 1 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Fluoride 2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Hexavalent chromium 0.01 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2014

Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 0.80 ND 2 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nitrate (as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.077 ND 0.271 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.08 ND 0.3 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015


Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

B-12

VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER


Benzene 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2015

Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.013 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Styrene 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Toluene 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015


Trifluoroethane

1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

B-13

NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER


Atrazine 0.001 mg/L 1 ND µg/L Aug. 2012

Bentazon 0.018 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Carbofuran 0.018 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

2,4-D 0.07 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Dalapon 0.2 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Dibromochloropropane 0.0002 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Dinoseb 0.007 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Diquat 0.02 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Endothall 0.1 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Ethylene Dibromide 0.00005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Glyphosate 0.7 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Oxamyl 0.05 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Pentachlorophenol 0.001 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Picloram 0.5 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

Simazine 0.004 mg/L 1 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2012

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 mg/L 2 ND ND ND ug/L Aug. 2012 - Aug. 2015

SECONDARY STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER


Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 5 54 ND 150 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Color 15 units 5 10.8 ND 15 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Iron 0.3 mg/L 5 162 50 410 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Manganese 0.05 mg/L 5 18 ND 60 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 5.6 ND 16 TON Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Turbidity 5 units 5 1.28 0.9 2 NTU Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Zinc 5 mg/L 5 6 ND 30 µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 5 104 80 130 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 5 182 147 216 µS/cm Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Chloride 250 mg/L 5 5 4 7 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 10.8 9.8 14 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

B-14


STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER



5 78 60 90 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Calcium

5 18.4 16 21 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015


5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Hardness

5 75.5 64.6 85.3 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015



Magnesium

5 7.2 6 8 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

pH

5 7.94 7.7 8.2 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Sodium 5 6.2 5 9 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

B-15

Table B-6: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Dr. Joe Waidhofer Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER


Aluminum 1 mg/L 6 40 10 120 ug/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Antimony 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Arsenic 0.01 mg/L 7 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Barium 1 mg/L 5 24.4 19.3 37.7 ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Beryllium 0.004 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Cadmium 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Chromium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Fluoride 2 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Mercury 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nickel 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nitrate (as N) 10 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Selenium 0.05 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Thallium 0.002 mg/L 5 ND ND ND ug/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

RADIOACTIVITY DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER



activity

15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2011

Beta/photon emitters 4 millirem/yr 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2011

B-16

VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER


Benzene 0.001 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Dichloromethane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Ethylbenzene 0.3 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.013 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Monochlorobenzene 0.07 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Styrene 0.1 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Toluene 0.15 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Trichloroethylene 0.005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.15 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011


Trifluoroethane

1.2 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

Xylenes 1.75 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011

B-17

SECONDARY STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER


Aluminum 0.2 mg/L 6 40.0 10.0 120.0 µg/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Color 15 units 5 1.2 ND 6.0 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Copper 1 mg/L 7 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Iron 0.3 mg/L 12 ND ND ND µg/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Manganese 0.05 mg/L 14 5.7 ND 20.0 µg/L Jan. 2011 - Jun. 2015

2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov.2011 - Nov.2011

Odor—Threshold 3 units 5 4.4 ND 16.0 TON Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Turbidity 5 units 5 ND ND ND NTU Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Zinc 5 mg/L 7 ND ND ND µg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 7 58.6 30.0 160.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Specific Conductance 900 uS/cm 7 99.7 72.0 258.0 µS/cm Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Chloride 250 mg/L 7 4.0 2.0 12.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Sulfate 250 mg/L 7 7.8 4.8 16.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015


STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER



7 47.1 30.0 100.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Calcium

7 8.0 6.0 20.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015



Hardness

7 32.3 23.2 86.9 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015



Magnesium

7 3.0 2.0 9.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

pH

7 8.2 8.1 8.2 units Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

Sodium 7 6.7 5.0 15.0 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015

APPENDIX C REFERENCES

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY C-1

ACOE, 2016. Visitation Counts at New Hogan Reservoir, provided by Taylor Johnson, Park Ranger,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 2016.

BOF, 2015. Drought Mortality Amendments, 2015, adopted by Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

December 9, 2015. Calaveras County, 2015a. Calaveras County 2014 Crop Report prepared by

Calaveras County Department of Agriculture.

_____, 2015b. Calaveras County 2014 Pesticide Use, prepared by Calaveras County Department of

Agriculture. 2015.

_____, 2015c. Calaveras County General Plan Land Use Element Edited Draft, prepared by Calaveras

County. October 18, 2015.

CAL FIRE, 2014. Strategic Fire Plan Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit, prepared by California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection. April, 2014.

_____, 2016a. Incident Information prepared by CAL FIRE for historical fires. Website accessed May

2016.

_____, 2016b. Timber Harvesting Plans, provided by CAL FIRE. Website accessed May 2016.

CDFA, 2016a. California Dairy Statistics Annual, Annual Data, prepared annually by the California

Department of Food and Agriculture. Website accessed April 2016 for five years of data.

_____, 2016b. California Agricultural Statistics Review, prepared by California Department of Food

and Agriculture. For years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

CDOC, 2016. AB 3098 List, published by California Department of Conservation Office of Mine

Reclamation

_____, 2016. Mines on Line, managed by California Department of Conservation Office of Mine

Reclamation. Accessed May 2016.

CDOF, 2016. County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, prepared by California

Department of Finance. May 2016.

_____, 2016. Population Estimates and Components of Change by County, prepared by California

Department of Finance. December 2015.

CDPR, 2015. Top Five Pesticides Used in Each County, prepared by California Department of Pesticide

Regulation from the Pesticide Use Report obtained for years 2010 through 2014.

COES, 2016. Historical HazMat Spill Notifications, prepared by California Office of Emergency

Services. 2011 through 2015.

CVRWQCB, 2016. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Website accessed March –

June 2016.

_____, 2014. NPDES and WDR for Forest Meadows WRP, prepared by Central Valley Regional Water

Quality Control Board. February 2014

_____, 2013a. NPDES and WDR for Copper Cove WWRF, prepared by Central Valley Regional Water

Quality Control Board. May 2013.

APPENDIX C REFERENCES

Calaveras River 2016 Watershed Sanitary Survey C-2

_____, 2013b. NPDES and WDR for Sierra Conservation Center WTP, prepared by Central Valley

Regional Water Quality Control Board. April 2013.

_____, 2011. NPDES and WDR for Bear Valley WWTF, prepared by Central Valley Regional Water

Quality Control Board. August 2011.

Forest Service, 2016. Stanislaus National Forest website accessed March through May 2016.

ICWDM, 2016. Canada Geese Damage Management Control Techniques, prepared by Internet Center

for Wildlife Damage Management. 2015.

LGC, 2008. Water Resources and Land Use Planning, Watershed-based Strategies for Amador and

Calaveras Counties. Prepared by Local Government Commission. December 2008.

Sacramento Bee, 2016. Tree Deaths Rise Steeply in Sierra; Drought and Insects to Blame, Edward

Ortiz, Sacramento Bee. May 3, 2016.

State Parks, 2015. Calaveras Big Trees State Park North Grove and Oak Hollow Campgrounds,

prepared by California State Parks. February 2015.

SWRCB, 2016a. Geotracker, environmental data for regulated hazardous substance facilities. State

Water Resources Control Board website accessed April 2016.

_____, 2016b. Project Facility at a Glance Report, prepared by California Integrated Water Quality

System for stormwater permittees. Website accessed May 2016.

_____, 2016c. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Incident Map, data available from State Water Resources

Control Board. Website accessed May 2016.

_____, 2016d. Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite

Wastewater Treatment Systems, information prepared by the State Water Resources Control

Board. Website accessed May 2016.

_____, 2016e. Regulated Facility Report, wastewater treatment plant data available from State Water

Resources Control Board. Website accessed May 2016.

Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Calaveras River 2016 Watershed Sanitary Surveythe Calaveras River watershed upstream of Bellota is...

Documents