Calaveras River 2016 Watershed Sanitary Survey

Prepared for Calaveras County Water District Stockton East Water District

Karen E. Johnson Water Resources Planning October 12, 2016

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

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 Potential Contaminant Sources ...... 3-12 Watershed Management ...... 3-13 Active and Inactive Mines ...... 3-13 Methyl Mercury ...... 3-14

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Recreation ...... 3-14 Concern ...... 3-14 Potential Contaminant Sources ...... 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 Watershed Management ...... 3-16 Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal ...... 3-17 Concern ...... 3-17 Potential Contaminant Sources ...... 3-17 Landfills ...... 3-17 Underground Storage Tanks ...... 3-17 Watershed Management ...... 3-18 Urban Runoff and Spills ...... 3-19 Concern ...... 3-19 Potential Contaminant Sources ...... 3-19 Stormwater Runoff ...... 3-19 Spills ...... 3-20 Watershed Management ...... 3-21 Stormwater Runoff ...... 3-21 Spills ...... 3-22 Wastewater ...... 3-23 Concern ...... 3-23 Potential Contaminant Sources ...... 3-23 Wastewater Treatment Dischargers Land Disposal ...... 3-26 Sanitary Sewer Overflows ...... 3-27 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems– ...... 3-27 Watershed Management ...... 3-28 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 Potential Contaminant Sources ...... 3-30 Watershed Management ...... 3-31 Wildlife ...... 3-32 Concern ...... 3-32 Potential Contaminant Sources ...... 3-33 Watershed Management ...... 3-33 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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 ts impact on river and reservoir water quality, as opposed to an indication of impacts from livestock, wildlife, recreation or wastewater facilities. California’s ongoing drought and i 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY ES-2 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

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 requirements of Title 22 Chapter 17: Surface Water Filtration and Disinfection Treatment, and recommendationswatershed control for and corrective management actions. practices, Updates an must evaluation include of a thedescription system’s of abilityany significant to meet 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION management, etc. Following the kick-off meeting, field surveys of selected locations in the of large amounts of data. A progress meeting was held on May 26, 2016 with SCRG agencies. watershed were conducted. A shared public Dropbox™ folder was set up to allow the easy exchange

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 Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and June 2013. Volume 8, Issue 6. – Roche, L.M., et al. ARecreationPPENDIX B on Title National 22 Monitoring Forest Lands. Results PLOS (2011-2015) One. APPENDIX C – REFERENCES. –

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-2 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-3 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 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 micrograms per liter USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USBRμg/L 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-4 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

WFMP Working Forest Management Plan WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facilities WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 1-5 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 ermit 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 Goodwinby the plant Dam is 33,.on the Stanislaus The WTP’s River. current A separate operating WSS p covers the Stanislaus River supply. the 134-person population of Sheep Ranch through 48 connections, and has a capacity of 30 gallons per minute (gpm). CCWD’s Sheep Ranch WTP serves

Valley Springs. The WTP serves a population of 9,592 through 3,807 connections and has a capacity ofCCWD’s 6 MGD. Jenny Lind WTP is located in the Rancho Calaveras subdivision about 3 miles south of

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-1 SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-2 SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-3 SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

CALAVERAS RIVER WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

ForHYDROLOGY purposes of the WSS, the Calaveras River watershed ends at SEWD’s Bellota intake. 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

Sierra Nevada. The Calaveras River watershed is located primarily in the hilly to steep terrain of the lowerhabitat. western The river’s slope headwaters of the Sierra of Nevada. the North and South Forks originate on the western slopes of the 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-4 SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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 tional Forest; however, no significant recreation sites are located within this part of the forest. A portion of the recreationalCalaveras Big uses. Trees The State watershed’s Park is located eastern in the edge Calaveras lies within River the watershed. Stanislaus One Na 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-5 SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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 ti- purpose reservoir, providing water supply, along with incidental flood control and recreational benefits.watershed’s At highnortheastern water level, portion. the lakeCCWD volume owns isand 262 operates AF. The the lake lake. is White supplied Pines mostly Lake byis a surface mul 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-6 SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

CCWD owns and holds the Federal Energy 300,000 Monthly Storage in New Hogan Reservoir Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to the 250,000 New Hogan powerhouse located at the base of New Hogan Dam. The powerhouse is operated 200,000 under contract by Modesto Irrigation District.

150,000 The power facilities operate on a run-of-the- AF river basis. The USACOE and SEWD control the 100,000 release of water from New Hogan Dam for flood

50,000 control or irrigation, respectively. When reservoir head and flow release rates are

0 within operational parameters, the

11 12 14 15 13

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Sep- powerhouse diverts water through the two

May- May- May- May- May- turbines. Flows beyond the capability of the Figure 2-3 Monthly Storage in New Hogan powerhouse are diverted through the dam's Reservoir (2011-2015) 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-7 SECTION 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE of the treatment plant. Because of local soil conditions, runoff from the burned area will have a primary raw water quality issues are anticipated to be manganese, turbidity, organics and disinfectionmajor impact byproducts on raw waterHAA5s quality and TTHMs and thein the District’s finished abilitywater. to produce drinking water. The 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 2-8 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-1 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-2 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-3 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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 Micro- DBP SOCs, VOCs, Watershed Activities organisms Precursors Turbidity & 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-4 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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. -Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 by developing forest practice regulations and policy applicable to timber management on stateThe Boardand private of Forestry timberlands. and Fire CAL Protection FIRE monitors implements logging the activities Z’berg 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

ownershipTimber harvests that are of a 2part to of 1,000 California’s acres are forests. 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-5 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-6 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-7 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 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 agricultural commissioners, who serve as the primary enforcement agents for state pesticide laws andpesticides regulations. applied County by professionalagricultural commissioners applicators. CDPR regulate works pesticide closely use with to prevent California’s misapplica- county

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-8 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

Table 3-4: Top Five Pesticides Used - 2014

Pesticide Commodity Pounds Acres Forest, Timberland 2,521 992 Rangeland - - Walnut 291 259 Grape, Wine 287 253 Glyphosate, Isopropylamine Industrial Site - - Salt Landscape Maintenance - - Rights-of-Way 1,490 77 Uncultivated Non-ag 159 57 All Other Sites 1,844 152 Total 6,591 1,789 Forest, Timberland 2,989 764 Rangeland 12 250 Walnut 44 157 Methylated Soybean Oil Grape, Wine 43 90 Rights-of-Way 301 60 All Other Sites 18 28 Total 3,407 1,349 Forest, Timberland 275 474 Rangeland 55 425 Walnut 15 199 alpha-(para-nonylphenyl)- Grape, Wine 6 92 omega- Pistachio 10 66 hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) Apple - - Pear - - All Other Sites 240 83 Total 602 1,339 Grape, Wine 7,436 989 Sulfur Total 7,436 989 Forest, Timberland 1 901 Grape, Wine <1 64 Rangeland <1 10 Strychnine 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-9 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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 the need for a particular pesticide and whether a safer pesticide or better method of application can be used and still prove effective. ’s duty in issuing a permit is to decide 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-10 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-11 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Runoff from grazed land is considered a non-point source of pollution and requires compliance -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 withState. the Typical SWRCB’s BMPs Non 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, as a voluntary management program for private grazing lands. The training supports ranchers to developCattlemen’s and Association,implement water and USDA’s quality Natural management Resources plans Conservation and BMPs on Service, their lands. continues to be used

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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-12 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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 sandWithin and the gravel watershed, have been placer the andmost hard active rock segments mining ofhas the occurred county’s along mineral the industry. 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 underTable California’s 3-6: Active Public Mines Resources – Calaveras Code. 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 Stone Upstream of Bellota Intake Removal 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-13 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 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 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 reservoirSWRCB’s bottom draft waters,Phase I 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-14 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-15 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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).

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-16 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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 unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacted cultural resourcesof the key sites threats (Forest facing Service, the 2016). nation’s forests today. In addition, OHV impacts have created

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-17 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES LANDFILLS. area, is used for the consolidation of waste before transfer to solid waste disposal sites located outside the watershed The area. San Separate Andreas bins transfer are available station, located for recycling. in the watershed’s Yard waste, northeastern 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

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-18 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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 protozoa. Transported hazardous materials could include fuel, pesticides, solvents, and a variety of otheroverflows materials. and milk trucks result in pathogen contamination, including bacteria, viruses, and

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-19 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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 Regulatory Effective Facility Name Order No. Community Waterbody Measure Date All Rock 2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater San Andreas Calaveritas Creek 3/30/1992 Aggregates Industrial Calaveras Cement 2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater San Andreas South Fork 4/6/1992 Company Industrial Calaveras Calaveras Unified 2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater San Andreas New Hogan 1/30/2013 School District Industrial Reservoir Valley Springs 2014-0057-DWQ Stormwater Valley Springs Cosgrove Creek 9/16/2013 Recycling Inc. Industrial Gold Creek 2009-0009-DWQ Stormwater Valley Springs Cosgrove Creek 4/15/2016 Woodgate Estates Construction Khosla Residence 2009-009-DWQ Stormwater Sheep Ranch San Antonio Creek 2/5/2008 Construction above Sheep Ranch WTP 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-20 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-21 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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

-owned and maintained roadside ditches,General Permitculverts, that channels, was adopted and related by the systemsSWRCB forfor Storm the collection Water Discharges and conveyance from Small of stormwater Municipal runoff.Separate Consistent Storm Sewer with these Systems. requirements, The MSs Calaveras include County publicly 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. -mandated requirements for the control of stormwater runoff discharge rates, for the conservation of natural areas,The County’s and for fosteringGeneral Plan development update processthat will now minimize includes adverse consideration impacts on of water State quality and associated water resources. The general public and businesses have been affected because the - unty storm drain system. SWRCB required that the County adopt an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of virtually all non stormwater into the Co requirements that are contained in the California Building Code. The new Grading Ordinance includesPreviously, these the County’s requirements Grading plus Ordinance additional simply measures required designed, compliance among with other the fairly things, generalized to better control off- needed to site carry sediment out the discharges. purposes ofThe the Ordinance Ordinance. references The new a Grading, Ordinance Drainage, also designated Erosion, and the DepartmentSediment Control of Public Design Works Manual as the thatsingle includes entity with more direct detailed responsibility design guidelines for all grading and pro work.cedures 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 by notified by the sheriff’s dispatch center, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans, or

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-22 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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

CVRWQCB. If the effluent is discharged to surface water, the facility is subject to a NPDES permit. If theWastewater effluent isdischarges discharged are to typically land via considered ponds or sprayfields, a point source it is regulated discharge, by permitted WDR. Onsi byte 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-23 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-24 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

Table 3-10: Surface Water WWTP Dischargers in Calaveras River Watershed Facility Name Owner Community/Waterbody NPDES No.

San Andreas/Murray San Andreas Wastewater San Andreas Sanitary Creek to North Fork CA0079464 Treatment Plant District Calaveras River 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-25 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

Table 3-11: Land Disposal Dischargers in the Calaveras River Watershed WDR Facility Name Owner Violations1 Community Order Big Trees County Houses R5-1994- CCWD NA Camp Connell WWTP 0357 Calaveras Big Trees State R5-2006- Ca Dept Parks & Rec NA Arnold Park 0043 Calaveras Timber Trails Calaveras Timber NA Avery 98-006 WWTF Trails Camp Connell Maintenance Ca Dept of DMON (5) Camp Connell 90-297 Station WWTF Transportation Gold Strike Village MHP Robert Bradley LREP (8) San Andreas 88-033 Jenny Lind Elementary School Calaveras Unified DMON (10) LREP Jenny Lind 92-075 Spray Fields School District (7) OREQ (1) R5-2013- La Contenta WWTP & RF CCWD NA Valley Springs 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 Valley Southworth Ranch Estates DMON (3) DR (3) CCWD Springs/ 90-258 WWTF OC (1) Wallace Ca Calaveras Unified Toyon Middle School NA San Andreas 97-074 School District Valley Springs R5-2005- Valley Springs WWTF NA Valley Springs Sanitary District 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) Total Total Volume Total Volume Agency/Collection System Number of of SSOs Recovered SSO Locations (gallons) (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 22 41,810 4,175 Andreas CS Valley Springs Sanitation District/Valley 1 100 0 Springs CS 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-26 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-27 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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 specific to each discharge and vary throughout the Central Valley. If a discharge is to an ephemeral stream or a stream that the CVRWQCBwater determines body’s water does quality not have objectives. any assimilative Effluent limitations capacity for are a receiving water has dilution capacity available, the CVRWQCB establishes effluent limitations that allowcontaminant, for a mixing the discharger’s zone and effluent effluent dilution must meet in the the receiving receiving water. water The quality CVRWQCB objectives. establ Ifishes the 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

Creek east of Columbia in Tuolumne County is the only impaired waterbody on the OWTS policy list;and itis drainsnot near to the an Tuolumneimpaired River.water body, the policy has little effect on property owners. Woods 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-28 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-29 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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 history. The 70,868 acres burned surrounding Mountain Ranch included 921 structure destroyed (i.e., 549 homes, 368 outbuildingsButte fire in and 4 wascommercial one of theproperties) most damaging and 44 firesstructures in California’s 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 Willow Creek to South Fork 2012 Michal Fire September 11 23 Calaveras 2012 Salt Fire Salt Spring Valley Reservoir September 5 84 2012 Paloma Fire New Hogan May 31 37 Tuolumne-Calaveras Wind 2011 Multiple locations December 6 781 Event 2011 TCU September Lightning Multiple locations September 9 1,135 2011 Freccero Fire Calavaritas Creek September 7 57 San Andreas Creek to South Fork 2011 Murray Fire July 25 83 Calaveras Source: CAL FIRE Incident Report (CAL FIRE, 2016a). Tributary/reservoirs were identified from aerial photographs and are approximate.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-30 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-31 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

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.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-32 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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 Percent Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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)

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 3-33 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 Giardia Cyst Treatment Virus Treatment Coliform MPN/100 mL Requirement 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)

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-1 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY 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 10,000 to < 10,000* 99,999 49,999

Begin first round of October April April October source water 2006 2007 2008 2008 monitoring

Submit Bin March September September September Classification 2009 2009 2010 2012

Begin second round of April October October April source water 2015 2015 2016 2019 monitoring

*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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-2 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

Table 4-3: LT2ESWTR Bin Classification Cryptosporidium Bin Additional Treatment Required Concentration (oocysts/L) Classification 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, an natural organic matter in surface water filtration plants that use conventional treatment. Compliance with the enhancedd included coagulation requirements requirement for enhanced is met by coagulationachieving specific for the levels removal of Tot ofal 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:

Raw Water TOC - Treated Water TOC  TOC Removal Achieved   100  Raw Water TOC 

The required TOC removal varies with the quality of the source water, as shown in Table 4-4.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-3 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

Table 4-4: Step 1 TOC Removal Requirements Source Water Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO ) Source Water 3 TOC (mg/L) 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:

TOC Removal Achieved Compliance Ratio  TOC Removal Required

compliance ratios for the previous 11 months to calculate a rolling 12-month average. If the rolling 12Each-month month, average a compliance of compliance ratio is ratiosdetermined. is 1.0 or Each greater, month’s the compliance requirement ratio is met. is averaged This calculation with the must be done each quarter. precursor treatment technique requirements. In any month that one or more of the following six conditionsThere are alternativeare met, a monthly compliance compliance criteria ratiowhich value can ofbe 1.0used can to be exempt assigned a system (in lieu from of the the value DBP 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.

pplication must be made within three months Ifof thedetermining system cannot that Step meet 1 removalsthe Step cannot TOC removal be achieved. levels, the system can apply to DDW for a Step alternative TOC removal requirement. The Step a

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-4 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

or pilot testing. The Step 2 removal requirements are determined as follows: In its application for the Step alternate TOC removal, the system must provide data from bench 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 Target pH

(mg/L as CaCO3)

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:

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-5 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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

distribution system. Level Assessments as described below, for potential sanitary defects in the 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-6 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

Start Decision Tree Here

Routine TCR Monitoring

TC- TC+ / EC- TC+ / EC+

Collect 3 repeat samples Collect 3 repeat samples within 24 hours and within 24 hours and proceed under TCR and proceed under TCR and collect any triggered collect any triggered samples at wells under samples at wells under GWR GWR

>5% samples in month No positive coliform ?

No Any repeat sample TC+ / EC+ ? Yes

Any repeat sample No TC+ / EC+ ? Yes Level 1 Assessment Yes

Yes TCR MCL Violation. No Public Notification – 24 Any repeat sample Any repeat sample hours. May require TC+ / EC- ? TC+ / EC- ? boil water notice.

No Yes

Two level 1 Yes Level 2 assessments in 12 Assessment months ?

No

Figure 4-1 Flow Chart for Revised Total Coliform Rule

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-7 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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 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 sanitaryA sanitary barrier defect already is defined in place. as 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

requiredA Level 1 if assessment a system does can not be collectconducted all of by the utility required staff repeat (i.e., it does samples not inhave a given to be month. 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).

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-8 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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.

“ existing Total Coliform Rule and the new requirements in the federal rTCR, until California Beginning April , , all public water systems will need to comply with California’s

Additionalcan information, complete the including regulatory Level adoption 1 Assessment process forms,for the isrTCR. 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

Primary Drinking Water Regulation], are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, unregulated contaminants that are not subject to (referred any proposed to as theor promulgated Contaminant NPDWRs Candidate [National List or CCL). Every five years, EPA is also required to determine whether or not to regulate at least five contaminantsand may require from regulation the CCL. under the SDWA 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-9 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY 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 stro data and decide whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction by regulating ntium to consider additional fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL4) containing 100 chemical constituents and 12 microbial entities.strontium in drinking water. In February , EPA published for public comment, a draft of the 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. to the presence of an algal toxin, microcystin, in drinking water. During this event, Toledo and Ohio EPAIn August used the, World Toledo, Health Ohio Organization issued a Do (WHO) Not Drink guidance order of to 1 approximatelyµg/L for microcystin , as residentsthe trigger due to concentration of microcystin was 14 µg/L and the treated water concentration was 2.5 µg/L. In responseissue the Doto the Not event, Drink Toledo order. staff On August operating , , the Collins at the start Park of Water the event, Treatment the raw Plant water (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 mi

Oncrocystin May 11, 2015in drinking EPA held water a public was below meeting µg/L on cyanobacteria and the Do Not and Use cyanotoxins. order was Thelifted. 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) 10-Day HA 10-Day HA Algal Toxin Health Effect <6 years of Age >6 Years of Age

Microcystin 0.3 1.6 Liver Toxicity

Cylindrospermopsin 0.7 3 Liver & Kidney Toxicity

EPA released the 10- -a. The HA documents include the following information. day HAs in June . At the same time the EPA released a Health Effects Support Information Document onfor sources,anatoxin occurrence, and environmental fate  Summary of available health effects information

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-10 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

 Calculation of the Health Advisories

 Recommended analytical methods

 Review of treatment technology EPA staff described the 10- non-carcinogenic effects are expected for a ten- issue of algal toxins, a singleday confirmed HAs as the positive concentration measurement in drinking in finished at or belowwater whichabove noone adverse of the infant HA values may trigger DDW to require publicday exposure.notification Given and/or the modification nationwide of interest treatment. in the

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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-11 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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.

3000 800 Sheep Ranch Raw Water Total Coliforms Sheep Ranch Raw Water E. coli* 700 *E. coli results of 1,600 MPN/100 mL on September 14, 2011 2500 >2,400 MPN/100 mL on October 5, 2011 not included in figure. 600 2000 500

1500 400

(MPN/100 (MPN/100 mL) 300 1000

E. coli coli E. 200

Total Coliform (MPN/100 mL) (MPN/100 Coliform Total 500 100

0 0

11 12 13 15 14

11 12 14 15 13

11 12 14 15 13

11 12 13 14 15

12 14 15 11 13

12 14 15 11 13

12 14 15 11 13

11 13 14 15 12

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Sheep Ranch Total Coliforms (2011-2015) 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.

35 9 Sheep Ranch Raw Water Turbidity Sheep Ranch Raw Water pH 8.5 30 8

25 7.5

7

20 pH 6.5 15

6 Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity

10 5.5 5 5 4.5

0 4

11 12 13 15 14

11 12 14 15 13

11 13 14 15 12

12 13 15 11 14

13 14 15 11 12

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15 11

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 Sheep Ranch Turbidity (2011-2015) Sheep Ranch pH (2011-2015)

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-12 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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.

10 60 Sheep Ranch Raw Water TOC Sheep Ranch Raw Water Alkalinity 9 50 8

7

40 ) 6 3

TOC (mg/L) TOC 5 30

4 20 3

2

10 Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO (mg/Las Alkalinity 1

0 0

13 14 15 11 12

12 13 14 15 11

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15 11

11 12 13 14 15

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-6 Figure 4-7 Sheep Ranch TOC (2011-2015) 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.

100 70 Sheep Ranch TTHMs Sheep Ranch HAA5 90 MCL = 60 µg/L MCL = 80 µg/L 60 80

70 50

60 40 50 30

40

HAA5 (µg/L) HAA5 TTHMs (µg/L) TTHMs 30 20 20 10 10

0 0

12 13 14 15 11

12 13 14 15

11 14

12 13

14 15 11 12 13

15 12 13 14

12 14 15 13

14 11 12 13

15 12 13 14

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-8 Figure 4-9 Sheep Ranch TTHMs (2011-2015) 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-13 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY 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.

3000 400 Jenny Lind Total Coliforms Jenny Lind E. coli 350 2500 300 2000 250

1500 200

(MPN/100 (MPN/100 mL) 150 1000

E. coli coli E. 100 500 Total Coliform (MPN/100 (MPN/100 mL) Coliform Total 50

0 0

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

11 12 14 12 13 14 15 11 13 15

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-10 Figure 4-11 Jenny Lind Total Coliforms (2011-2015) 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-14 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY 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.

80 8.5 Jenny Lind Daily Raw Water Turbidity Jenny Lind Daily Raw Water pH 70 8

60 7.5 50 7

40 pH 6.5 30

Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity 6 20

10 5.5

0 5

11 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 12

11 14 15 11 12 13 14 12 13 15

11 13 14 15 12 14 15 12 11 13

11 14 15 11 12 13 15 12 13 14

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-12 Figure 4-13 Jenny Lind Turbidity (2011-2015) 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.

7 100 Jenny Lind Monthly Raw Water TOC Jenny Lind Raw Water Alkalinity

6 90 )

5 3 80

4 70

TOC (mg/L) TOC 3 60

2 50

1 (mg/L CaCO asAlkalinity 40

0 30

11 12 13 14 11 12 13 14 15 15

11 13 14 11 12 13 14 15 12 15

12 14 15 14 15 11 13 11 12 13

12 13 14 15 14 15 11 11 12 13

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-14 Figure 4-15 Jenny Lind TOC (2011-2015) Jenny Lind Alkalinity (2011-2015)

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-15 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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.

100 70 Jenny Lind TTHMs Jenny Lind HAA5 90 60 80 70 50 60 40 50

TTHMs (µg/L) TTHMs 30

40 (µg/L) HAA5 30 20 20 10 10 Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Honda Nall Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Nall Honda

0 0

11 12 13 14 15

12 14 15 11 13

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 15 14

11 12 13 14 15

12 13 11 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-16 Figure 4-17 Jenny Lind Monthly TTHMs (2011-2015) 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.

100 80 Jenny Lind TTHM LRAAs 90 Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs 70 MCL = 80 µg/L 80 MCL = 60 µg/L 60 70 50 60

50 40 TTHMs (µg/L) TTHMs 40 (µg/L) HAA5 30 30 20 20 10 Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Honda Nall 10 Oak Ridge Danaher Myrtle Honda Nall 0

0

12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

12 14 13 15

12 14 15 13

12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15 11

- - - -

Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec-

Mar- Mar- Mar- Mar-

Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec-

Mar Mar Mar Mar Figure 4-18 Figure 4-19 Jenny Lind TTHM LRAAs (2011-2015) Jenny Lind HAA5 LRAAs (2011-2015)

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-16 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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 line which then conveys water to the Bellota Pipeline or -2015, the MelonesStanislaus Conveyance River (via NewSystem Melones to Peter’s Conveyance Pipe System) was the primary raw water supply to DJW WTP.through Based Peter’s on a Pipeline review of Extension weekly supply to the records DJW WTP. at the DuringDJW WTP the influent, study period 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-17 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

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.

6,000 450 DJW WTP Raw Water Total Coliforms* DJW WTP Raw Water E. coli* *Two data points are not shown on graph: 5,794 MPN/100 mL 400 *One data point is not shown on graph: 648 MPN/100 mL 5,000 and 6,586 MPN/100mL in September 2014. in November 2012. 350

4,000 300

250 3,000 200 2,000

(MPN/100 (MPN/100 mL) 150

100

1,000 E. coli coli E.

Total Coliforms (MPN/100 mL) (MPN/100 Coliforms Total 50

0 0

11 12 13 15 14

11 12 13 14 15 10

11 12 14 15 13

10 13 15 11 12 14

11 12 13 14 15 10

11 12 13 14 15

15

10 11 12 13 14

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr-

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov-

Mar- Mar- Mar- Mar- Mar- Figure 4-20 Figure 4-21 DJW WTP Weekly Total Coliforms (2011 -2015) 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 -10-11PA-005 following requirement in SEWD’s Operating Permit Amendment No. <0.1 NTU requirement in at least 95% of the maximum daily readings and watch for any upwardSEWD shall trends. continue If to any review filter monthly shows IFE increasing turbidity values,data to determine diagnose compliance the filter andwith 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

Figure 4-22 presents daily raw water turbidity.treatment... 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-18 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY 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.)

18 140 DJW WTP Raw Water Turbidity DJW WTP Raw Water Daily Hardness 16 120 14 100 12

10 80

8 60

6 (mg/L) Hardness

Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity 40 4 20 2

0 0

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15 11

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-22 Figure 4-23 DJW WTP Daily Turbidity (2011-2015) 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-19 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

30 120 DJW WTP Raw Water Temperature DJW WTP Raw Water Color

25 100

20 80

C)

o

15 60

10 40

Color (color units)(color Color

Temperature ( Temperature

5 20

0 0

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Figure 4-24 Figure 4-25 DJW WTP Daily Temperature (2011-2015) 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.

10 140 DJW WTP Raw Water TOC DJW WTP Daily Raw Water Alkalinity 9 120 8

7 100

6 80 5 60

4 TOC (mg/L) TOC 3

Alkalinity (mg/L) Alkalinity 40 2 20 1

0 0

11 13 14 15 12

11 13 14 15 12

11 13 14 15 12

11 12 13 14

11 12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15 11

11 12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15 11

- - - - -

Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul- Jul-

Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec-

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan-

Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-

Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr- Apr-

Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Figure 4-26 Figure 4-27 DJW WTP Monthly TOC (2011-2015) 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-20 SECTION 4 WATER QUALITY

90 70 DJW WTP Quarterly TTHMs DJW WTP Quarterly HAA5 80 60 70 50 60 40 50

40 30 HAA5 (µg/L) HAA5

TTHMs (µg/L)TTHMs 30 20 20 10 10

0 0

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

- - - - -

11 12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

11

11 12 13 14 15

- - - - -

Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec-

Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar

Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Figure 4-28 Figure 4-29 DJW WTP Quarterly TTHMs (2011-2015) 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.

100 80 DJW WTP TTHM RAA DJW WTP HAA5 RAA 90 70 MCL = 80 µg/L 80 MCL = 60 µg/L 60 70 50 60

50 40

40

HAA5 (µg/L) HAA5 30 TTHMs (µg/L) TTHMs 30 20 20 10 10

0 0

12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15

12 13 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

15

12 13 14

12 14 15 13

13

12 14 15

11 12 13 14 15

-

- - -

Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec-

Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-

Mar- Mar- Mar- Mar-

Sep- Sep- Sep- Sep-

Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec-

Mar Mar Mar Mar Figure 4-30 Figure 4-31 DJW WTP TTHM LRAA (2011-2015) 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).

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 4-21 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.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-1 SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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 e the risk for faster moving and– more intense fires. The aftermath can lead to large loadings of sediment and organic matterin loss inof surfacetrees due water to State’s runoff. ongoing drought and bark beetle infestation rais

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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-2 SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-3 SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-4 SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY 5-5

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CATTLE GRAZING AND RECREATION ON NATIONAL FOREST LANDS

Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands

Leslie M. Roche1*, Lea Kromschroeder1, Edward R. Atwill2, Randy A. Dahlgren3, Kenneth W. Tate1 1 Department 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, 3 Department 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, additional research is required to document and examine potential water quality issues across common resource use activities. During the 2011 grazing-recreation season, we conducted a cross sectional survey of water quality conditions associated with cattle grazing 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, and soluble-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. Nutrient concentrations observed throughout the grazing-recreation season were at least one order of magnitude below levels of ecological concern, and were similar to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) estimates for background water quality conditions in the region. The relative percentage of FIB regulatory benchmark exceedances widely varied under individual regional and national water quality standards. Relative to USEPA’s national E. coli FIB benchmarks–the most contemporary and relevant standards for this study–over 90% of the 743 samples collected were below recommended criteria values. FIB concentrations were significantly greater when stream flow was low or stagnant, water was turbid, and when 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 between key grazing areas and non-concentrated use areas. Our results suggest cattle grazing, recreation, and provisioning of clean water 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 on National 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: ß 2013 Roche et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted 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 had no 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 annually, provisioning 6.1 million animal unit months (AUM) of forage supply allocated through 5,220 grazing permits Livestock grazing allotments on public lands managed by the held by private ranching enterprises [10]. In California (USFS United States Forest Service (USFS) provide critical forage Region 5), 500 active grazing allotments annually supply 408,000 supporting ranching enterprises and local economies [1–3]. AUM of forage to support 97,000 livestock across 3.2 million ha Surface waters on public lands are used for human recreation on 17 national forests. With an annual recreating population of and consumption, and serve as critical aquatic habitat. Concerns over 26 million [11], California’s national forests are at the have been raised that microbial and nutrient pollution by livestock crossroad of a growing debate about the compatibility of livestock grazing on public lands degrades water quality, threatening grazing with other activities (e.g., recreation) dependent upon human and ecological health [4–7]. Some of the contaminants clean, safe water. of concern include fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), fecal coliform There is a paucity of original research on water quality (FC) and Escherichia coli (E. coli), as well as nitrogen (N) and conditions on public grazing lands, and the conclusions of these phosphorus (P). FIB are regulated in an attempt to safeguard reports are often inconsistent. For example, in California’s Sierra public health from waterborne pathogens such as Cryptosporidium Nevada, Derlet and Carlson [6] found surface water samples parvum and E. coli O157:H7 and human enteroviruses including collected below horse and cattle grazing areas on USFS- adenoviruses and coliphages [8]. Concerns about elevated N and P administered lands were more likely to have detectable E. coli concentrations in surface water stem from the potential for than non-grazed sites in national parks. Derlet et al. [12] reported eutrophication of aquatic systems [9]. algal coverage, algal-E. coli associations, and detection of The USFS must balance the many resource use activities waterborne E. coli to be greatest at sites below cattle grazing and occurring on national forests (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation). lowest below sites experiencing little to no human or cattle activity, National forests in the western United States support 1.8 million with human recreation sites being intermediate. Also in the central

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

Sierra Nevada, Myers and Whited [13] found FIB increased in surface waters; 2) compare these results to a) water quality surface waters below key grazing areas on USFS allotments regulatory benchmarks, b) maximum nutrient concentrations following the arrival of cattle. However, Roche et al. [14] found no recommended to avoid eutrophication, and c) estimates of nutrient evidence of degradation of Yosemite toad breeding pool water background concentrations for this region; and 3) examine quality in key grazing areas on three allotments in the Sierra relationships between water quality, environmental conditions, National Forest of central California. Examining land-use and and cattle grazing and recreation (i.e., resource uses). water quality associations in watersheds throughout the Cosumnes River Basin, Ahearn et al. [15] also reported water quality Methods conditions in upper forested watersheds, which include USFS grazing allotments, to be well below levels of ecological concern. Ethics Statement The purpose of this study was to quantify microbial pollutant Permission for site access was granted by the US Forest Service, and nutrient concentrations during the summer cattle grazing and and no permits were required. recreation season on 12 representative allotments across 5 national forests in northern California. Specific objectives were to 1) Study Area quantify FC, E. coli, total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total This cross sectional, longitudinal water quality survey was phosphorus, and soluble-reactive phosphate concentrations in 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-sectional longitudinal study of stream water quality between June and November 2011. Unshaded polygons are other U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in the study area. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g001

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

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.

Median (mg 2 2 2 2 2 Nutrient Meana (mgL 1) L 1) Maximum (mgL 1) Below Detectionb (%) Eutrophicationc (mgL 1) Backgroundd (mgL 1)

TN 5862.7 33 675 5 – 60–530 6 NO3-N 19 0.9 5 221 51 300 5–40

NH4-N 1160.4 5 146 61 – – TP 2162.8 9 1321 32 100 9–32 6 PO4-P 7 0.3 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 are provided for context. aThe ‘6’ indicates 1 standard error of the mean. 2 2 bPercentage of samples below minimum analytical detection limit. Limits were 10 mgL 1 for nitrogen and 5 mgL 1 for phosphorous. Observations below detection 2 2 limit were set to one half detection limit (5 mgL 1 for nitrogen and 2.5 mgL 1 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 lands in northern California, USA (Fig. 1). Allotments were Cattle stocking densities ranged from 1 animal unit (,450 kg selected to represent the diversity of climate, soil, vegetation, water cow with or without calf) per 18 ha to 1 animal unit per 447 ha quality regulatory agencies, and resource use activities found (Table S1). Timing of grazing (turn on and turn off dates for across this landscape. The study area ranged from 41u409 to cattle), duration of grazing season, and number of cattle are 37u559 N latitude and 123u309 to 120u109 W longitude, and permitted by the USFS on an allotment-specific basis. Animal unit included national forests in the Klamath, Coast, Cascade, and month (AUM) is the mass of forage required to sustain a single Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges. Allotments were located on the animal unit for a 30-day period, and is the standard metric of Klamath (Allotments 1, 2), Shasta-Trinity (Allotments 3–6), grazing pressure on USFS allotments. Plumas (Allotments 7, 8), Tahoe (Allotments 9, 10), and Stanislaus Foraging, and thus spatial distribution of cattle feces and urine, (Allotments 11, 12) National Forests (Fig. 1). The study area is non-uniform across these allotments. Areas receiving relatively totaled approximately1,300 km2 and elevation ranged from 207 to concentrated use by cattle are referred to as key grazing areas. Key 3,016 m (Table S1). The prevailing climate is Mediterranean with grazing areas are often relatively small, stream-associated mead- cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The majority of ows and riparian areas that are preferentially grazed by cattle due precipitation falls as snow between December and April, with to high forage quantity and quality and drinking water availability. snow melt generally occurring between May and June. Soils in For the most part, allotments are not cross-fenced to create Allotments 1–2, 5–7, and 11 are dominated by Inceptisols; pastures, which would improve grazing distribution. Where cross- Allotments 3, 10, and 12 are dominated by Alfisols; Allotment 8 fences exist, resulting pasture sizes are large (.2000 ha) with few and 9 are dominated by Mollisols; and Allotment 4 is dominated pastures per allotment (,3). by Andisols [16] (Table S1). All allotments were located in mountainous watersheds with Sample Site Selection canopy cover of mesic and xeric forests ranging from 9 to 89 and 2 Key grazing areas and concentrated recreation areas within to 93% cover, respectively [17]. Cooler mesic conifer forests were 200 m of streams in each allotment were identified and enrolled in dominated by white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies magnifica), and the study in collaboration with local USFS managers and forest Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The relatively drier xeric conifer stakeholders. Water sample collection sites were established in forests were dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and streams immediately above, beside, and/or below sites with each Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Montane hardwood and shrub cover activity to characterize water quality associated with these ranged from 0 to 20%, and grass and forb cover from 1 to 9%. activities. Recreational activities included developed and undevel- Wet meadows and other riparian plant communities covered 1 to oped campgrounds, swimming-bathing areas, and trailheads used 5% of allotment areas, and were the primary forage source for by hikers and recreational horse riders (i.e., pack stock). Key cattle grazing in these allotments. grazing areas were meadows and riparian areas that cattle were known to graze and occupy frequently and/or for extended Grazing Management periods throughout the grazing season. Additional sites were Cattle grazing management strategies on the study allotments established at perennial flow tributary confluences with no reflect those widely found on western public grazing lands, such as concentrated use activities, enabling us to objectively include those reviewed in Delcurto et al. [18] and George et al. [19]. comparison sites across allotments with no concentrated grazing Study allotments were grazed with commercial beef cow-calf pairs and/or recreation. While cattle use was concentrated primarily in during the June to November grazing-growing season, following key grazing areas, cattle grazing could occur throughout each allotment-specific management plans designed to achieve annual allotment; therefore, it was not possible to determine water quality herbaceous forage use standards (Table S1). Herbaceous use conditions in the complete absence of cattle. standards are set as an annual management target to protect A total of 155 stream water sample collection sites were ecological condition and function of meadow and riparian sites identified and sampled monthly throughout the 2011 summer [20], and vary by national forest, allotment, and meadow grazing-recreation period. Sample collection sites per allotment ecological conditions [21–27]. ranged from 7 to 18, depending upon the number of key grazing

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

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 and November 2011. (A) Total nitrogen, (B) nitrate (NO3-N), and (C) ammonium (NH4-N) were measured directly. (D) Organic nitrogen represents the th th difference between total nitrogen and NO3-N plus NH4-N. Bottom and top of shaded box are the 25 and 75 percentile of data, horizontal line within 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. June n = 135; July n = 150; August n = 178; September n = 120; October n = 127; November n=33. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g002

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

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 November 2011. (A) Total phosphorus (B) and soluble-reactive phosphorus (PO4-P) were measured directly. (C) Non-soluble-reactive phosphorus represents the difference between total phosphorus (measured on unfiltered sample and treated with digesting agent) and soluble-reactive phosphorus. Bottom and 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 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.g003 and recreation areas identified, and number of tributary conflu- recreation activities, and 20% were tributary confluences with no ences (Table S1). Sixty-three percent of sample sites were concentrated use activities. associated with key grazing areas, 17% were associated with

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

Figure 4. Overall monthly (A) fecal coliform and (B) E. coli 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 and November 2011. Bottom and 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 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

Sample Collection and Analysis A vertical, depth-integrated stream water collection was made at In 2011, a total of 743 water samples were collected and the stream channel thalweg [28]. Water was collected in sterilized, analyzed during the June 1 through November 9 study period, acid-washed one liter sample containers, which were immediately which captured the period of overlapping cattle grazing and stored on ice. All samples were analyzed for FC and E. coli within 8 recreation activities across these allotments. On each allotment, hours of field collection. A 250 ml subsample was taken from each sampling occurred monthly throughout the grazing-recreation sample, frozen within 24 hours of collection, and processed for season. All sites in an allotment were sampled on the same day. nutrient concentrations within 28 days of field collection. FC and Total sample numbers per allotment ranged from 40 to 88 (Table E. coli concentrations as colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of S1). water sample were determined by direct one step membrane At the time of sample collection, environmental conditions and/ filtration (0.45 mm nominal porosity filter) and incubation (44.5uC, or resource use activities that may have affected water quality were 22–24 hours) on selective agar following standard method recorded. Specifically, the following conditions were noted (yes/ SM9222D [29]. Difco mFC Agar (Becton, Dickinson and no): 1) stagnant-low stream flow (,2 liters per second); 2) turbid Company, Spars, MD, USA) and CHROMagar E. coli (Chro- stream water; 3) recreation (i.e., swimming-bathing, camping, mAgar, Paris, France) were used for FC and E. coli, respectively. hiking, fishing, horse riding); 4) cattle; and 5) any activities (i.e., low Total N (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) were measured after stream flow, turbid water, precipitation, cattle, recreation users) persulfate digestion of non-filtered subsamples following Yu et al. observed that may affect water quality. If algae, periphyton, or [30] and standard method SM4500-P.D [29], respectively. other aquatic autotrophic organisms were present at high to Concentrations of nitrate (NO3-N), ammonium (NH4-N), and moderate levels (.20% of substrate cover) at time of sampling, soluble-reactive phosphorus (PO4-P) were determined from filtered then these conditions were recorded. (0.45 mm nominal porosity filter) subsamples following Doane and Horwath [31], Verdouw et al. [32], and Eaton et al. [29],

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

Table 2. Percentage of 743 stream water samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California which exceeded water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly.

Overall Key Grazing Area Recreation Area No Concentrated Use Activities Benchmark (% of 743) (% of 462) (% of 125) (% of 156)

2 FC .20 cfu 100 ml 1a 50 48 46 58 2 FC .50 cfu 100 ml 1b 31 28 27 42 2 FC .200 cfu 100 ml 1c 10 10 6 13 2 FC .400 cfu 100 ml 1d 45 2 4 2 E. coli .100 cfu 100 ml 1e 98 7 11 2 E. coli .126 cfu 100 ml 1f 77 6 8 2 *E. coli .190 cfu 100 ml 1g 54 4 6 2 *E. coli .235 cfu 100 ml 1h 33 3 4 2 E. coli .320 cfu 100 ml 1i 22 2 2 2 E. coli .410 cfu 100 ml 1j 12 2 1 . 21k NO3-N 300 mgL 00 0 0 2 TP.100 mgL 1l 22 2 ,1 21m PO4-P.50 mgL ,11 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 use activities 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 a 30-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 on GM 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-day interval). 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 the75th percentile 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 the75th percentile 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 contact recreators (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 quality k distribution based on desired GM). Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) recommended by USEPA [38,39]. lMaximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40]. m Maximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) recommended by USEPA [39,41]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t002

2 respectively. Minimum detection limits were ,10 mgL 1 for TN, period [34]. The study area falls within the jurisdiction of three 21 NH4-N, and NO3-N and ,5 mgL for TP and PO4-P. Organic semi-autonomous California Regional Water Quality Control nitrogen (ON) was calculated as TN –[NO3-N+NH4-N], and non- Boards (RWQCBs), each of which has established enforceable soluble-reactive PO4-P was calculated as TP – PO4-P. Laboratory standards based on FC benchmarks [35–37] ranging from 20 to 2 quality control included replicates, spikes, reference materials, 400 cfu 100 ml 1. We report study results relative to each of these control limits, criteria for rejection, and data validation methods benchmarks to allow for comparisons to the various national and [33]. regional policies. For our study, which is based on monthly monitoring of multiple land-use activity types and environmental Data Analysis and Interpretation conditions across a broad regional scale (spanning approximate- 2 Descriptive statistics were calculated for the overall dataset as ly1,300 km ), the most relevant and contemporary comparisons well as by 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and sample sites are the national U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 21 with no concentrated resource use; 2) activity observed at time of E. coli single sample-based [8,34] standards of 190 cfu 100 ml sample collection; 3) and month. Results were compared to (estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators) 21 numerous FIB benchmark concentrations used in the formulation and 235 cfu 100 ml (estimated illness rate of 36 per 1,000 of contemporary microbial water quality standards, maximum primary contact recreators). nutrient concentrations recommended to avoid eutrophication, General recommendations for maximum concentrations to and background nutrient concentration estimates for surface prevent eutrophication of streams and rivers are 300, 100, and 21 waters across the study area. The United States Environmental 50 mgL for NO3-N, TP, and PO4-P, respectively [38–42]. The Protection Agency (USEPA) nationally recommends and has study area is within three USEPA Level III Sub-Ecoregions (5, 9, provided guidance on E. coli FIB-based standards ranging from and 78), and estimated background concentrations for TN, NO3- 2 100 to 410 cfu 100 ml 1, dependent upon selected illness rate N, and TP in these sub-regions range from 60 to 530, 5 to 40, and 21 benchmarks and frequency of sample collection over a 30 day 9to32mgL , respectively [43].

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

Table 3. Percentage of 155 stream water sample sites on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California which had at least one exceedance of water quality benchmarks relevant to the study area, specifically, and the nation, broadly.

Overall Key Grazing Area Recreation Area No Concentrated Use Activities Benchmark (% of 155) (% of 97) (% of 27) (% of 31)

2 FC .20 cfu 100 ml 1a 83 82 81 87 2 FC .50 cfu 100 ml 1b 65 61 63 81 2 FC .200 cfu 100 ml 1c 34 36 22 39 2 FC .400 cfu 100 ml 1d 18 20 11 19 2 E. coli .100 cfu 100 ml 1e 29 31 22 29 2 E. coli .126 cfu 100 ml 1f 25 28 19 23 2 *E. coli .190 cfu 100 ml 1g 17 16 15 19 2 *E. coli .235 cfu 100 ml 1h 14 13 11 16 2 E. coli .320 cfu 100 ml 1i 86 11 10 2 E. coli .410 cfu 100 ml 1j 66 7 3 . 21k NO3-N 300 mgL 00 0 0 2 TP.100 mgL 1l 810 7 3 21m PO4-P.50 mgL 23 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 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 a 30-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 on GM 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-day interval). 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 the75th percentile 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 the75th percentile 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 contact recreators (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 quality k distribution based on desired GM). Maximum concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) recommended by USEPA [38,39]. lMaximum concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) recommended by USEPA [39,40]. m Maximum concentrations of phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) recommended by USEPA [39,41]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t003

At the sample site-scale, we used bivariate generalized linear test for mean FIB and nutrient concentration (dependent variables mixed effects models (GLMMs) and zero-inflated count models to were fecal coliform, E. coli, TN, NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4-P)

Table 4. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium as nitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across 155 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)

2 FC (cfu 100 ml 1)87612 a 5569b 90612 a 2 E. coli (cfu 100 ml 1)4266a 2967b 4368a 2 Total N (mgL 1)6164a 3863b 6466a 2 NO3-N (mgL 1)1761ab 1661a 2562b 2 NH4-N (mgL 1)1160.6 a 1061a 1060.7 a 2 Total P (mgL 1)2464a 1464a 1762a 2 PO4-P (mgL 1)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 indicate significant (P,0.05 with Bonferroni-correction for multiple comparisons) differences between resource use activity categories. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.t004

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

Table 5. Mean concentrations for fecal coliform (FC) and E. coli, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium as nitrogen (NH4-N), total phosphorus (TP), and phosphate as phosphorus (PO4-P) for 743 total stream water samples collected across 155 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 2 FC (cfu 100 ml 1)216667** 7267212664** 7668205639** 566536613 8468115616** 5466 2 E. coli (cfu 100 ml 1)114645* 3563142656** 3563115621** 24631465* 41646169* 2363 2 Total N (mgL 1)87616 556395612 5663446460632763** 596348636564 21 NO3-N (mgL )1763196119611663196218611663196117612061 21 ** NH4-N (mgL )15631060.4 1060.4 13629611160.5 760.7 1160.4 1060.6 1160.5 2 Total P (mgL 1)30652063107637** 166220632163106221632766* 1561 21 ** ** * ** PO4-P (mgL )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’ indicates 1 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 differences between 1) key grazing areas, recreation areas, and corrections to safeguard against Type I errors. Bonferroni adjusted sample sites with no concentrated resource use; and 2) occurrence p-values were considered significant at 0.0071 (dividing P=0.05 of stagnant-low stream flow, turbid stream water, cattle, and by the 7 water quality indicators tested) and 0.0014 (dividing recreation at the time of sample collection. We used GLMMs to P=0.01 by the 7 water quality indicators tested). All statistical analyze dependent variables with overdisperison (i.e., greater analyses were conducted in Stata/SE 11.1 [48]. variance than expected) (fecal coliform, E. coli, TN) using the Poisson probability distribution function with robust standard Results errors [44]. For the GLMMs, we specified allotment identity and sample site identity as sequential random effects to account for Surface Water Quality and Weather Conditions Observed hierarchical nesting and repeated measures [44,45]. Data with during Study evidence of both overdispersion and zero-inflation can be Precipitation during the 2010–11 water year ranged from 88 to produced by either unobserved heterogeneity or by processes that 173% of the 30-year mean annual precipitation for each involve different mechanisms generating zero and nonzero counts allotment, with 11 of 12 allotments receiving over 100% of mean [46–48]. For dependent variables with apparent overdispersion annual precipitation (Table S1). Overall, nutrient concentrations . and zero-inflation ( 25% zeros; NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, and PO4- were low across the study area (Table 1). With the exception of P), we used likelihood ratio tests to evaluate relative fits of zero- TN, over 32% of samples were below minimum detection limits 2 2 inflated negative binomial versus zero-inflated Poisson models for all nutrients (,10 mgNL 1 and ,5 mgPL 1). Nitrogen [46–48]; we used simple Vuong tests [49] to evaluate relative fits of concentrations increased in October and November with the onset zero-inflated versus standard count models; and we used either of fall rains (Fig. 2), and phosphorus concentrations showed no likelihood ratio tests or Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), as seasonal patterns (data not shown). The sum of NO3-N and NH4- appropriate, to compare relative fits between negative binomial N concentrations was lower than organic N (TN –[NO3-N+NH4- and Poisson models. To account for the within-cluster correlation N]) concentrations throughout the sampling season (Fig. 2), due to repeated measures, we specified sample site identity as a suggesting that the majority of nitrogen was in organic forms. clustering variable in the final models to obtain robust variance Additionally, PO4-P concentrations were much lower than TP estimates [50]. (Table 1; Fig. 3), suggesting that the majority of phosphorus was We also examined allotment-scale relationships of FIB and either organic or inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments. nutrient concentrations with environmental conditions and Mean and maximum FC and E. coli concentrations per allotment 21 grazing management. We used bivariate zero-truncated count ranged from 30 to 255 and 17 to 151 CFU 100 ml , and from models to test associations between mean allotment values of 248 to 3,460 and 74 to 1,920, respectively (Table S2). FIB concentrations were highest from August through October (Fig. 4). 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, Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to Water 2 cattle density as cow-calf pairs 100 ha 1, mean allotment Quality Benchmarks elevation, and 2011–2012 water year precipitation [42] (indepen- Mean and median NO3-N, TP, and PO4-P concentrations were dent variables). We used likelihood ratio tests to compare Poisson at least one order of magnitude below nutrient concentrations and negative binomial models [48]. For all analyses, when multiple recommended to avoid eutrophication (Table 1). No samples response variables were predicted with the same independent exceeded the NO3-N maximum recommendation (Table 1). variables, we interpreted significance levels using Bonferroni Overall, less than 2% of samples exceeded eutrophication

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

Figure 5. Trends in overall mean fecal indicator bacteria concentrations across sample sites during the June through November 2011sample period on 12 U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study. 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 and mean allotment concentrations of (C) E. coli (P.0.6) and (D) fecal coliform (P.0.5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068127.g005 benchmarks (Table 2), and less than 8% of sites exceeded these (Table 3). The relative percentage of samples and sites exceeding benchmarks at least once (Table 3). Mean and median TN, NO3- FIB benchmarks for key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non- N, and TP concentrations were at or below estimated background concentrated use areas varied by the individual benchmarks concentrations for the study area (Table 1). The percentage of all (Tables 2 and 3). samples (Table 2) exceeding FIB benchmarks ranged from 50% We found significantly (P,0.002) lower FC, E. coli, TN and 21 (benchmark FC = 20 cfu 100 ml ) to 1% (benchmark E. PO4-P concentrations at recreation areas than at key grazing areas 2 coli = 410 cfu 100 ml 1), while the percentage of sites (Table 3) and areas with no concentrated use activities (Table 4). Mean , that exceeded a FIB benchmark at least once ranged from 83% NO3-N concentrations were also significantly lower (P 0.001) at 2 (benchmark FC = 20 cfu 100 ml 1) to 6% (benchmark E. recreation sites than at areas with no concentrated use activity; 2 coli = 410 cfu 100 ml 1). however, it is important to note that all nutrient concentrations were at or below background levels (Table 1), and none of the sites Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative to Grazing, sampled ever exceeded the maximum recommended NO3-N Recreation, and Field Observations concentrations during the study (Tables 3). Relative to conditions at time of sample collection, FC, E. coli, Nutrient concentrations were at or below background levels, and PO -P concentrations were significantly (P,0.0071) higher and only 0–10% of sites within each resource use activity category 4 when stream flow was low or stagnant, stream water was turbid, (i.e., key grazing areas, recreation areas, and non-concentrated use and when cattle were actively observed (Table 5). TP concentra- activities) had at least one nutrient benchmark exceedance tions were also significantly higher (P,0.001) under turbid water

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

conditions. E. coli, TN, NH4-N, and PO4-P concentrations were FIB Concentrations Relative to Water Quality Benchmarks 2 significantly lower (P,0.006) when recreation activities were Overall mean and median E. coli were 40 and 8 cfu 100 ml 1, 2 observed at time of sampling, compared to sample events when and mean and median FC were 82 and 21 cfu 100 ml 1 (Table recreation was not occurring (Table 5). Occurrence of high to S2)– indicating that the nationally recommended E. coli FIB-based moderate cover (.20% of substrate cover) of algae, periphyton, benchmarks would be broadly met, and that the more restrictive, and other aquatic organisms at time of sampling was low (,2% of FC FIB-based regional water quality benchmarks would be samples). commonly exceeded across the study region. Clearly, assessments of microbial water quality and human health risks are dependent Allotment-scale Nutrient and FIB Concentrations Relative upon which FIB benchmarks are used for evaluation (Tables 2 and to Grazing Management and Environmental Conditions 3). Mean allotment-scale nutrient concentrations were not signif- The scientific and policy communities are currently evaluating icantly related (at Bonferroni adjusted P,0.0071) to cattle density the utility of, and guidance for, FIB-based water quality objective effectiveness for safe-guarding recreational waters. As reviewed in (TN: P = 0.3; NO3-N: P = 0.2; NH4-N: P = 0.2; TP: P = 0.3; PO4- Field and Samadpour [8], E. coli and FC are not always ideal P: P = 0.1), precipitation (TN: P = 0.09; NO3-N: P = 0.07; NH4-N: indicators of fecal contamination and risk to human health from P = 0.73; TP: P = 0.3; PO4-P: P = 0.04), mean allotment elevation (TN: P = 0.02; NO -N: P = 0.4; NH -N: P = 0.07; TP: P = 0.5; microbial pathogens. Poor correlations between bacterial indica- 3 4 tors and pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Giardia spp., Cryptospo- PO4-P: P = 0.2), AUM (TN: P = 0.6; NO3-N: P = 0.5; NH4-N: P = 0.9; TP: P = 0.1; PO -P: P = 0.6), or grazing duration (TN: ridium spp., and human viruses undermine the utility of these 4 bacteria as indicators of pathogen occurrence and human health risk P = 0.02; NO -N: P = 0.5; NH -N: P = 0.03; TP: P = 0.6; PO -P: 3 4 4 [8]. The ability of FIB to establish extra-intestinal, non-animal, P = 0.6). non-human associated environmental strains and to grow and Mean allotment E. coli and FC concentrations showed reproduce in water, soil sediments, algal wrack, and plant cavities increasing trends with increasing cattle densities and AUMs, and also erodes their utility as indicators of animal or human fecal decreasing trends with increasing precipitation; however, these contamination [8]. Citing scientific advancements in the past two relationships were not statistically significant (P.0.2; Fig. 5). Mean decades, the USEPA now recommends adoption of an indicator E. P. P. allotment elevation ( 0.8), and cattle grazing duration ( 0.7) coli water quality objective as an improvement over previously were also not correlated to mean allotment FIB concentrations used general indicators, including FC [34]. This guidance is based, (data not shown). in part, on E. coli exhibiting relatively fewer of the fecal indicator bacteria utility issues listed above, and on evidence that E. coli is a Discussion better predictor of gastro-intestinal illness than FC. Therefore, comparing our results to the most relevant and scientifically Nutrient Conditions Relative to Water Quality defensible E. coli FIB-based recommendations, 17% of all sites 2 Benchmarks exceeded the 190 cfu 100 ml 1 benchmark, and 14% of all sites 2 Mean and median nutrient concentrations observed across this exceeded the 235 cfu 100 ml 1 benchmark [34]. This analysis, grazed landscape were well below eutrophication benchmarks and based on the best available science and USEPA guidance, clearly background estimates (Table 1) [38–43]. Observed peak values in contrasts with the FC FIB-based interpretations currently in use by nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were largely organic (or several regional regulatory programs, which suggest that as many inorganic P adsorbed to suspended sediments) (Figs. 2 and 3), as 83% of all sites in our study present potential human health which are not considered readily available to stimulate primary risks. production and eutrophication [39,51]. These results do not support concerns that excessive nutrient pollution is degrading Temporal Patterns in Water Quality surface waters on these USFS grazing allotments [4,12]. Our We observed a marked increase in total nitrogen concentrations nutrient results are consistent with other examinations of surface in October and November, driven primarily by increased organic water quality in similarly grazed landscapes. In the Sierra Nevada, nitrogen, and to a lesser extent NO3-N (Fig. 2). This coincided Roche et al. [14] found nutrient concentrations of surface waters with the first rainfall-runoff events of fall that initiated flushing of within key cattle grazing areas (mountain meadows) to be at least solutes and particulates. The annual fall flush occurs subsequent to an order of magnitude below levels of ecological or biological the summer drought and base flow period during which organic concern for sensitive amphibians. On the Wallowa-Whitman and inorganic nutrient compounds accumulate in soil and forest National Forest in northeastern Oregon, Adams et al. [52] also litter [54,57–60]. The disparity between TN and inorganic reported nutrient levels to be at or below minimum detection nitrogen (NO3-N+NH4-N) indicates the majority of flushed levels in surface waters at key grazing areas. nitrogen was either particulate or dissolved organic nitrogen Our results also agree with other studies of nutrient dynamics in (Fig. 2). Consequently, most of the nitrogen flushed was likely in a the study area [53,54]. Headwater streams, such as those draining relatively biologically unavailable form [51], with limited risk the study allotments, typically make up 85% of total basin scale (relative to inorganic forms) of stimulating primary production and drainage network length, have high morphological complexity, eutrophication. However, in nitrogen limited systems, increased and high surface to volume ratios–which make them particularly biological utilization of organic nitrogen can occur [61]. effective at nutrient processing and retention [55]. Leonard et al FIB concentrations were highest from August through October [54] found that drainages in the western Tahoe Basin recovering (Fig. 4), which coincides with the period of maximum number of from past disturbances and undergoing secondary succession tend cattle turned out (Table S1). There is clear evidence that FIB to act as sinks for nutrients. Several studies have reported nutrient concentrations increase with the introduction of cattle into a limitations across montane and subalpine systems resulting in low landscape, and increase with increasing cattle numbers [62–65]. riverine nutrient export [56]. 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,

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 11 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands low-flow conditions have been associated with elevated FIB [66– Although not statistically significant, we observed decreasing 68]. Across this region, stream water temperatures are at their mean allotment FIB concentrations with greater precipitation annual maximum in August and stream flows are at their annual during the 2010–2011 water-year (October 1 to September 30) minimum in September [69,70]. We observed stagnant-low flow (Fig. 5C and 5D). It is likely that precipitation during the 2010– conditions to be significantly associated with increased FIB 2011 water-year is primarily reflecting snowpack, which supported concentrations (Table 5). It is likely that the seasonal peak of higher than historical stream flow volumes during the study FIB concentrations is driven by timing of maximum annual cattle period. This potential relationship possibly reflects capacity of numbers, as well as optimal environmental conditions for growth higher base flow volumes to dilute FIB concentrations. Lewis et al. and in-stream retention of both animal-derived and environmental [84] observed a similar negative correlation between surface runoff bacteria (e.g., wildlife sources) [71–73]. Similar temporal trends in FC concentrations and annual cumulative precipitation on FIB concentrations have been observed in surface waters of California coastal dairy pastures. Our observation that maximum Oregon, Wyoming, and Alaska [65,74,75]. FIB concentrations occurred under stagnant-low flow conditions (Table 5) also supports the potential for a negative relationship Water Quality, Grazing, Recreation, and Environmental between FIB concentrations and annual precipitation. Conditions Our results do not support previous concerns of widespread microbial water quality pollution across these grazed landscapes, Mean FIB concentrations at key grazing and non-concentrated as concluded in other surveys [6,12,13]. Although we did find use areas were higher than recreation sites, but did not exceed apparent trends between cattle density and FIB concentrations USEPA E. coli FIB-based benchmarks (Table 4). Mean FIB (Figs. 5A and 5B) and significantly greater FIB concentrations concentrations for all resource use activity categories exceeded the when cattle were actively present, only 16% and 13% (Table 3) of most restrictive regional FC FIB-based benchmarks of 20 and 21 key grazing areas (n = 97) exceeded the E. coli FIB-based 50 cfu 100 ml . E. coli FIB-based benchmark comparisons were 21 21 benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m and 235 cfu 100 m , respec- generally comparable across sites, with recreation sites exhibiting tively. Only 5 and 3% of total samples collected exceeded the E. 2 overall lower numbers of exceedances; however, the different FC coli FIB-based benchmarks of 190 cfu 100 m 1 and 235 cfu 2 FIB-based benchmark comparisons indicated inconsistent results 100 m 1, respectively (Table 2). In contrast, Derlet et al. [6] for water quality conditions across sites (Table 3). Similar to other reported 60% and 53% of cattle grazing sites (n = 15) exceeded the 2 2 surveys in the region [6,12,13], FIB concentrations were 190 cfu 100 m 1 and 235 cfu 100 m 1 benchmarks, respectively. significantly greater when cattle were present at time of sample We also found no significant differences in FIB concentrations collection (Table 5). Tiedemann et al. [65] observed the same among key grazing areas and areas of no concentrated use trend, with higher stream water FC concentrations on forested activities (Table 4), which contrasts with previous work in the watersheds experiencing relatively intensive cattle grazing com- Sierra Nevada [6,12]. Finally, in this landscape of mixed livestock pared to ungrazed watersheds. Gary et al. [63] found grazing to grazing and recreational uses, we found FIB concentrations to be have relatively minor impacts on water quality, though a lowest at recreation sites, indicating that water recreation statistically significant increase in stream water FC concentrations objectives can be broadly attained within these grazing allotments. was induced at a relatively high stocking rate. There are three important distinctions that separate our study Mean allotment FIB concentrations showed apparent increasing from previous work: 1) in reaching our conclusions, we compared trends with greater cattle densities (Fig. 5A and 5B); however, our study results to regulatory and background water quality these allotment-level relationships were not statistically significant. benchmarks, which are based on current and best available science Decreasing cattle density lowers fecal-microbial pollutant loading and policy; 2) these co-occurring land-use activities were directly [76], which has been shown to reduce FIB concentrations in runoff compared on the same land units managed by a single agency from grazed landscapes [77]. Decreasing cattle density may also (USFS), as opposed to previous comparisons between these land- reduce stream bed disturbance and re-suspension of FIB-sediment uses occurring on different management units administered by associations by cattle [78–82]. Attracted to streams for shade, different agencies with very different land-use histories and policies water, and riparian forage, cattle have been shown to spend (e.g., USFS and U.S. National Park Service); and 3) to date, this approximately 5% of their day within or adjacent to a stream [63], study is the most comprehensive water quality survey in existence depositing about 1.5% of their total fecal matter within one meter for National Forest public grazing lands, including an assessment of a stream [83]. In a comprehensive review, George et al. [19] of seven water quality indicators at 155 sites across five National found that management practices that reduce livestock densities, Forests. residence time, and fecal and urine deposition in streams and riparian areas can reduce nutrient and microbial pollutant loading Conclusions of surface water. Nutrient concentrations observed across this extensively grazed Samples associated with turbid stream water at the time of landscape were at least one order of magnitude below levels of sample collection had significantly higher mean FIB concentra- ecological concern, and were similar to USEPA estimates for tions than samples associated with non-turbid conditions (Table 5). background conditions in the region. Late season total nitrogen It has been well documented that stream sediments contain higher concentrations increased across all study allotments due to a first concentrations of FIB than overlying waters [78–80,82], and that flush of organic nitrogen associated with onset of fall rainfall-runoff re-suspension of sediments in the water column by factors such as events, as is commonly observed in California’s Mediterranean cattle disturbance or elevated stream flow is associated with climate. Similar to previous work, we found greater FIB elevated water column FIB concentrations [81]. FIB concentra- concentrations when cattle were present; however, we did not tions were also significantly higher under stagnant-low flow find overall significant differences in FIB concentrations between conditions (Table 5). Schnabel et al. [75] found a negative key grazing areas and non-concentrated use areas, and all but the correlation between stream discharge and FIB concentrations at most restrictive, FC FIB-based regional water quality benchmarks some sites, possibly due to the absence of a dilution effect under were broadly met across the study region. Although many regional low flow conditions. regulatory programs utilize the FC FIB-based standards, the

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 12 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

USEPA clearly states–citing the best available science–E. coli are samples collected across 155 sample sites on 12 U.S. better indicators of fecal contamination and therefore provide a Forest Service grazing allotments in northern Califor- more accurate assessment of water quality conditions and human nia. All concentrations are reported as colony forming units per 2 health risks. Throughout the study period, the USEPA recom- 100 ml of sample water (cfu 100 ml 1). 2 mended E. coli benchmarks of 190 and 235 cfu 100 ml 1 were met (DOCX) at over 83% of sites. These results suggest cattle grazing, recreation, and clean water can be compatible goals across these Acknowledgments national forest lands. We thank Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and staff from the Klamath, Shasta- Trinity, Plumas, Tahoe, and Stanislaus National Forests for their assistance Supporting Information with study plan development and field data collection; Tom Lushinsky, Table S1 Geographic characteristics, study year pre- D.J. Eastburn, Natalie Wegner, Donna Dutra, Mark Noyes, and Xien cipitation, cattle grazing management, and water qual- Wang for lab sample processing; University of California Cooperative Extension and USFS District Rangers and Forest Supervisors who ity sample collection sites and sample numbers for 12 provided lab space; and Anne Yost, Barry Hill, and three anonymous U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments in northern reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments on this manuscript. California enrolled in this cross-sectional longitudinal study of stream water quality between June and Author Contributions November 2011. (DOCX) Conceived and designed the experiments: KWT ERA RAD. Performed the experiments: KWT. Analyzed the data: LMR KWT. Contributed Table S2 Mean, median, and maximum fecal coliform reagents/materials/analysis tools: KWT RAD. Wrote the paper: LMR LK (FC) and E. coli concentrations for 743 stream water ERA RAD KWT.

References 1. Gentner BJ, Tanaka JA (2002) Classifying federal public land grazing permittees. 20. Clary WP, Leininger WC (2000) Stubble height as a tool for management of J Range Manage 55: 2–11. riparian areas. J Range Manage 53: 562–573. 2. Huntsinger L, Forero LC, Sulak A (2010) Transhumance and pastoralist 21. BLM (1999) Utilization studies and residual measurements. Denver: USDI resilience in the Western United States. Pastoralism 1: 9–36. Bureau of Land Management. 174 p. 3. Sulak A, Huntsinger L (2002) The importance of federal grazing allotments to 22. USFS (1988) Plumas National Forest land and resource management plan central Sierran oak woodland permittees: A first approximation. In: Standiford website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/plumas/landmanagement. RB, editor. Fifth symposium on oak woodlands: Oaks in California’s changing Accessed 2013 May 23. landscape, PSW-GTR-184. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service Pacific 23. USFS (1990) Tahoe National Forest land and resource management plan Southwest Research Station. 43–51. website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tahoe/landmanagement. Ac- 4. Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S (1999) Survey of livestock influences on stream cessed 2013 May 23. and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J Soil Water Conserv 54: 24. USFS (1995) Shasta-Trinity National Forest land and resource management 419–431. plan website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/ 5. Brunson MW, Steel BS (1996) Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs about planning. Accessed 2013 May 23. federal rangeland management. J Range Manage 49: 69–75. 25. USFS (2004) 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest plan amendment record of decision. 6. Derlet RW, Carlson JR (2006) Coliform bacteria in Sierra Nevada wilderness Vallejo, California: USDA Forest Service. 72 p. lakes and streams: What is the impact of backpackers, pack animals, and cattle? 26. USFS (2010) Klamath National Forest land and resource management plan J Wilderness Med 17: 15–20. website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/ 7. Taylor FR, Gillman LA, Pedretti JW (1989) Impact of cattle on 2 isolated fish planning. Accessed 2013 May 23. populations in Pahranagat Valley, Nevada. Great Basin Nat 49: 491–495. 27. USFS (2010) Stanislaus National Forest land and resource management plan 8. Field KG, Samadpour M (2007) Fecal source tracking, the indicator paradigm, website. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stanislaus/landmanagement/ and managing water quality. Water Res 41: 3517–3538. planning. Accessed 2013 May 23. 9. Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, et al. (2009) 28. Dahlgren RA, Tate KW, Ahearn DS (2004) Watershed scale, water quality Controlling eutrophication: Nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323: 1014–1015. monitoring – water sample collection. In: Down RD, Lehr JH, editors. 10. USFS (2011) Grazing statistical summary fiscal year 2009. Washington, D.C.: Environmental instrumentation and analysis handbook. New York: John Wiley USDA Forest Service. 108 p. and Sons. 547–564. 11. USFS (2012) National visitor use monitoring results - USDA Forest Service 29. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE, Franson MAH (2005) national summary report. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 31 p. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater: Centennial 12. Derlet RW, Richards JR, Tanaka LL, Hayden C, Ger KA, et al. (2012) Impact edition. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association. 1368 p. of summer cattle grazing on the Sierra Nevada watershed: Aquatic algae and 30. Yu ZS, Northup RR, Dahlgren RA (1994) Determination of dissolved organic bacteria. J Env Pub Health 2012: 1–7. nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate- 13. Myers L, Whited B (2012) The impact of cattle grazing in high elevation Sierra nitrogen. Commun Soil Sci Plan 25: 3161–3169. Nevada mountain meadows over widely variable annual climatic conditions. J Env Protection 3: 823–837. 31. Doane TA, Horwath WR (2003) Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate 14. Roche LM, Allen-Diaz B, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing and with a single reagent. Anal Lett 36: 2713–2722. Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus Camp) breeding habitat in Sierra Nevada meadows. 32. Verdouw H, Vanechteld CJA, Dekkers EMJ (1978) Ammonia determination Rangeland Ecol Manag 65: 56–65. based on indophenol formation with sodium salicylate. Water Res 12: 399–402. 15. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Anderson M, Johnson J, et al. (2005) 33. Puckett M (2002) Quality assurance management plan for the state of Land use and land cover influence on water quality in the last free-flowing river California’s surface water ambient monitoring program. Surface Water Ambient draining the western Sierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 313: 234–247. Monitoring Program website. Available: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_ 16. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Staff (2008) Soil Survey issues/programs/swamp/tools.shtml. Accessed 2013 May 23. Geographic Database (SSURGO). Available: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/ 34. USEPA (2012) Recreational water quality criteria. Washington D.C.: US geography/ssurgo/. Accessed 2013 May 31. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 17. USFS (2009) CALVEG 2000, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 73 p. Remote Sensing Lab website. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/ 35. CVRWQCB (2011) The water quality control plan (basin plan) for the gis/data/vegcovs/cvalley/EvegTile33A_00_07_100k_v2.html. Accessed 2013 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley region. May 31. Sacramento: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 148 p. 18. Delcurto T, Porath M, Parsons CT, Morrison JA (2005) Management strategies 36. LRWQCB (2005) Water quality control plan for the Lahontan region. South for sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the Pacific Lake Tahoe: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. 55 p. Northwest. Rangeland Ecol Manag 58: 119–127. 37. NCRWQCB (2011) Water quality control plan for the North Coast region. 19. George MR, Jackson RD, Boyd CS, Tate KW (2011) A scientific assessment of Santa Rosa: North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 13 p. the effectiveness of riparian management practices. In: Bridke DD, editor. 38. Cline C (1973) The effects of forest fertilization on the Tahuya River, Kitsap Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendations, Peninsula, Washington. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology. and knowledge gaps. Lawrence: Allen Press. 213–252. 55 p.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 13 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127 Water Quality Conditions on National Forest Lands

39. MacDonald LH, Smart AW, Wissmar RC (1991) Monitoring guidelines to 62. Doran JW, Schepers JS, Swanson NP (1981) Chemical and bacteriological evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and quality of pasture runoff. J Soil Water Conserv 36: 166–171. Alaska, EPA 910/9–91–001. Seattle: US Environmental Protection Agency. 63. Gary HL, Johnson SR, Ponce SL (1983) Cattle grazing impact on surface-water 180 p. quality in a Colorado Front Range stream. J Soil Water Conserv 38: 124–128. 40. Mackenthun KM (1973) Toward a cleaner aquatic environment. Washington, 64. Schepers JS, Francis DD (1982) Chemical water-quality of runoff from grazing D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency. 289 p. land in Nebraska. 1. Influence of grazing livestock. J Environ Qual 11: 351–354. 41. USEPA (1986) Quality criteria for water: 1986. Washington, D.C.: US 65. Tiedemann AR, Higgins DA, Quigley TM, Sanderson HR, Marx DB (1987) Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Responses of fecal-coliform in streamwater to 4 grazing strategies. J Range 477 p. Manage 40: 322–329. 42. USEPA (1987) Surface water monitoring: A framework for change. Washington, 66. Allan JD (1995) Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and London: Chapman & Hall. 388 p. Standards. 41 p. 67. Edwards DR, Coyne MS, Daniel TC, Vendrell PF, Murdoch JF, et al. (1997) 43. USEPA (2000) Ambient water quality criteria recommendations: Rivers and Indicator bacteria concentrations of two northwest Arkansas streams in relation streams in Ecoregion II. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection to flow and season. T ASAE 40: 103–109. Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 120 p. 68. Lau YL, Liu D (1993) Effect of flow-rate on biofilm accumulation in open 44. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using channels. Water Res 27: 355–360. stata. College Station: Stata Press. 562 p. 69. Krupa M, Tate KW, Van Kessel C, Sarwar N, Linquist B (2011) Water quality 45. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New in rice-growing watersheds in a Mediterranean climate. Agr Ecosyst Environ York: Springer-Verlag. 528 p. 144: 290–301. 46. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: 70. Tate KW, Lancaster DL, Lile DF (2007) Assessment of thermal stratification Cambridge University Press. within stream pools as a mechanism to provide refugia for native trout in hot, 47. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent arid rangelands. Environ Monit Assess 124: 289–300. variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 71. Alm EW, Burke J, Hagan E (2006) Persistence and potential growth of the fecal 48. StataCorp (2009) Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station: indicator bacteria, Escherichia coli, in shoreline sand at Lake Huron. J Great Lakes StataCorp LP. Res 32: 401–405. 49. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested 72. Byappanahalli MN, Whitman RL, Shively DA, Ting WTE, Tseng CC, et al. hypotheses. Econometrica 57: 307–333. (2006) Seasonal persistence and population characteristics of Escherichia coli and 50. Williams RL (2000) A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated enterococci in deep backshore sand of two freshwater beaches. J Water Health 4: data. Biometrics 56: 645–646. 313–320. 51. Campbell JL, Hornbeck JW, McDowell WH, Buso DC, Shanley JB, et al. (2000) 73. Roszak DB, Colwell RR (1987) Survival strategies of bacteria in the natural- Dissolved organic nitrogen budgets for upland, forested ecosystems in New environment. Microbiol Rev 51: 365–379. England. Biogeochemistry 49: 123–142. 74. Clark ML, Norris JR (2000) Occurrence of fecal coliform bacteria in selected 52. Adams MJ, Pearl CA, McCreary B, Galvan SK, Wessell SJ, et al. (2009) Short- streams in Wyoming,1990–99: Water resources investigations report 00–4198. term effect of cattle exclosures on Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) Cheyenne: US Geological Survey. 8 p. populations and habitat in northeastern Oregon. J Herpetol 43: 132–138. 75. Schnabel WE, Wilson T, Edwards R, Stahnke G, Maselko M, et al. (2010) 53. Green MB, Fritsen CH (2006) Spatial variation of nutrient balance in the Variability, seasonality, and persistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a cold- Truckee River, California-Nevada. J Am Water Resour As 42: 659–674. region, urban stream. J Cold Reg Eng 24: 54–75. 54. Leonard RL, Kaplan LA, Elder JF, Coats RN, Goldman CR (1979) Nutrient 76. Roche LM, Latimer AM, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW (2012) Cattle grazing and transport in surface runoff from a subalpine watershed, Lake Tahoe Basin, conservation of a meadow-dependent amphibian species in the Sierra Nevada. California. Ecol Monogr 49: 281–310. PloS One 7: 1–11. 55. Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL, et al. (2001) 77. Knox AK, Tate KW, Dahgren RA, Atwill ER (2007) Management reduces E. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292: coli in irrigated pasture runoff. Calif Agr 61: 159–165. 86–90. 78. Jamieson R, Joy DM, Lee H, Kostaschuk R, Gordon R (2005) Transport and 56. Hill BH, McCormick FH, Harvey BC, Johnson SL, Warren ML, et al. (2010) deposition of sediment-associated Escherichia coli in natural streams. Water Res Microbial enzyme activity, nutrient uptake and nutrient limitation in forested 39: 2665–2675. streams. Freshwater Biol 55: 1005–1019. 79. Jamieson RC, Gordon RJ, Tattrie SC, Stratton GW (2003) Sources and 57. Ahearn DS, Sheibley RW, Dahlgren RA, Keller KE (2004) Temporal dynamics persistence of fecal coliform bacteria in a rural watershed. Water Qual Res J Can of stream water chemistry in the last free-flowing river draining the western 38: 33–47. Sierra Nevada, California. J Hydrol 295: 47–63. 80. Sherer BM, Miner JR, Moore JA, Buckhouse JC (1992) Indicator bacterial 58. Bernal S, Butturini A, Sabater F (2005) Seasonal variations of dissolved nitrogen survival in stream sediments. J Environ Qual 21: 591–595. and DOC : DON ratios in an intermittent Mediterranean stream. Biogeochem- 81. Stephenson GR, Rychert RC (1982) Bottom sediment - a reservoir of Escherichia- istry 75: 351–372. coli in rangeland streams. J Range Manage 35: 119–123. 59. Miller WW, Johnson DW, Denton C, Verburg PSJ, Dana GL, et al. (2005) 82. Van Donsel DJ, Geldreich EE (1971) Relationships of Salmonellae to fecal Inconspicuous nutrient laden surface runoff from mature forest Sierran coliforms in bottom sediments. Water Res 5: 1079–1087. watersheds. Water Air Soil Poll 163: 3–17. 83. Porath ML, Momont PA, DelCurto T, Rimbey NR, Tanaka JA, et al. (2002) 60. van Verseveld WJ, McDonnell JJ, Lajtha K (2008) A mechanistic assessment of Offstream water and trace mineral salt as management strategies for improved nutrient flushing at the catchment scale. J Hydrol 358: 268–287. cattle distribution. J Anim Sci 80: 346–356. 61. Kaushal SS, Lewis WM (2005) Fate and transport of organic nitrogen in 84. Lewis DJ, Atwill ER, Lennox MS, Pereira MDG, Miller WA, et al. (2009) minimally disturbed montane streams of Colorado, USA. Biogeochemistry 74: Reducing microbial contamination in storm runoff from high use areas on 303–321. California coastal dairies. Water Sci Technol 60: 1731–1743.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 14 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e68127

APPENDIX B TITLE 22 MONITORING RESULTS (2011 – 2015)

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 Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date Gross Alpha particle 15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2012 activity

B-1

VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 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 1,2-Dichloroethane 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 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 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 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 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- 1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Trifluoroethane 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-2 NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER (SOCS) Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER STANDARDS 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 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 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-3

Table B-2: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Sheep Ranch Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND 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 Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND MFL Mar. 2013 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 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 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 0.10 ND 0.52 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 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

B-4

SECONDARY STANDARDS SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/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 Chloride 250 mg/L 5 5.22 4.5 6.4 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 1.25 0.86 1.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY SHEEP RANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER STANDARDS Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date Bicarbonate alkalinity 5 27 20 45 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Calcium 8 6.09 3.8 10 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Carbonate Alkalinity 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Hardness 5 32.2 22 52 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Hydroxide alkalinity 5 ND ND ND 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 Sodium 5 5.52 4.8 6.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

B-5

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

INORGANICS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 28 ND 140 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 Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND Oct. 2012 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 5 0.124 0.1 0.18 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 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 0.6 ND 1.0 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.14 ND 0.23 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 JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date Gross Alpha particle 15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2012 activity

B-6

VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 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 1,2-Dichloroethane 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 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 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 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 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 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- 1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Trifluoroethane 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-7 NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER (SOCS) Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/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 64 ND 210 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Manganese 0.05 mg/L 13 409 45 1100 µg/L Apr. 2011 - Dec. 2015 Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.005 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Odor Threshold 3 units 6 1 ND 2 TON Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L 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 Chloride 250 mg/L 5 4.6 3.3 5.9 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 15.4 11 21 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RAW WATER STANDARDS Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date Bicarbonate alkalinity 6 71.2 60 90 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Calcium 7 19.4 17 23 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Carbonate Alkalinity 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Hardness 5 82.8 66 107 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Hydroxide alkalinity 5 ND ND ND 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 Sodium 5 6.2 5.3 7.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

B-8

Table B-4: Title 22 Analysis of Treated Water from the Jenny Lind Water Treatment Plant

INORGANICS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date Aluminum 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND 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 Asbestos 7 MFL 1 ND ND ND MFL Aug. 2013 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 5 0.128 0.11 0.14 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 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 0.6 ND 0.93 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as N) 10 mg/L 5 0.13 ND 0.21 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Nitrite (as N) 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 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

B-9 SECONDARY STANDARDS JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 Copper 1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/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 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 Silver 0.1 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L 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 Chloride 250 mg/L 5 8.16 6.7 9.7 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Sulfate 250 mg/L 5 15.8 11 22 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY JENNY LIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT TREATED WATER STANDARDS – Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date Bicarbonate alkalinity 5 72 60 90 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Calcium 7 19.4 15 24 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Carbonate Alkalinity 5 ND ND ND mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Hardness 5 89.2 75 111 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015 Hydroxide alkalinity 5 ND ND ND 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 Sodium 6 8.12 7.0 9.6 mg/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2015

B-10

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 Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 Perchlorate 0.006 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/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-11

VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- 1.2 mg/L 5 ND ND ND µg/L Aug. 2011 - Aug. 2015 Trifluoroethane 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-12 NON-VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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-13 MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WTP – CALAVERAS INTAKE RAW WATER STANDARDS Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date Bicarbonate alkalinity 5 78 60 90 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015 Calcium 5 18.4 16 21 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015 Carbonate Alkalinity 5 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015 Hardness 5 75.5 64.6 85.3 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015 Hydroxide alkalinity 5 ND ND ND 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-14 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 Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date Gross Alpha particle 15 pCi/L 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2011 activity Beta/photon emitters 4 millirem/yr 1 ND ND ND pCi/L Apr. 2011 - Apr. 2011

B-15 VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS) DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER Constituent MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- 1.2 mg/L 2 ND ND ND µg/L Nov. 2011 - Nov. 2011 Trifluoroethane 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-16 SECONDARY STANDARDS DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER Constituent Secondary MCL Samples Average Min Max Units Date 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 MONITORING ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY DR. JOE WAIDHOFER WATER TREATMENT PLANT – TREATED WATER STANDARDS Constituent Samples Average Min Max Units Date Bicarbonate alkalinity 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 Carbonate Alkalinity 7 ND ND ND mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015 Hardness 7 32.3 23.2 86.9 mg/L Jun. 2011 - Jun. 2015 Hydroxide alkalinity 7 ND ND ND 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

B-17 APPENDIX C REFERENCES

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.

CALAVERAS RIVER 2016 WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEY C-1 APPENDIX C REFERENCES

_____, 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.

Calaveras River 2016 Watershed Sanitary Survey C-2