The Regional Water Board received comments on the draft Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment dated October 10, 1997 as well as comments of the Proposed Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment dated December 9, 1998. A detailed compilation of the comments and Regional Board staff responses to the comments, including comments and responses resulting from a review conducted by Dr. William Deitrich and Dr. Mary Powers of the University of California at Berkeley as an external scientific peer review of the scientific basis for the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment is contained in a separate document. This document is on file, and may be reviewed and copied at the Regional Water Board office from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. on Friday. Persons wishing to review the detailed comments and responses should telephone the Regional Water Board office at (707) 576-2220.
The Regional Water Board received comments from the following during the public comment periods encompassed by the October 25, 1997 public workshop and the January 22, 1998 public hearing.
Commentors requesting that the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment be adopted
Interested Individual and Businesses
Ernest and Pat Bird (11/18/97)
Alan Levine (10/22/97 and 1/22/98)
Albion River Watershed Protection Association (12/10/97)
Big River Watershed Council, represented by Allen Cooperider (1/22/98)
Cal Trout, represented by John Hooper (1/22/98)
Center for Ethics and Toxics (I 1/ 19/97)
Citizens for Watershed Protection, represented by Helen Libeu (1/22/98)
Coast Action Group, represented by Alan Levine (10/20/97,10/22/97, 11/5/97 and 1/22/98)
Friends of the Garcia River, represented by Peter Dobbins (10/22/97 and 1/22/98)
Friends of Salmon Creek (12/11/97)
Gualala River Improvement Network (11/20/97)
Navarro River Estuary Project (1/6/98)
North Greenwood Community Association, represented by Dr. Hillary Adams (1/22/98)
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, represented by Joe Brescher and
Salmonid Restoration Federation, represented by Craig Bell (1/22/98)
Sierra Club, California Field Office, represented by Jennifer Witherspoon (1/22/98
City of Point Arena, represented by Leslie Dahlhoff (10/28/97 and 1/22/98)
National Marine Fisheries Service, represented by Patrick Ruttan (1/22/98)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (10/29/97) ?
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, represented by Maria Rea
(10/22/97, 11/14/97 and 1/22/98)
Commentors requesting that the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment be modified before adoption or not adopted
Interested Inividuals and Businesses
Barnum Timber Company, represented by Steve Homer (11/14/97 and 1/22/98)
Carol Caughey, representing Garcia Watershed Agriculture Owners (1/22/98)
Coastal Forestlands, Ltd., represented by Bob Whitney (10/22/97) and Tim Best
Fruitgrowers Supply Company, represented by Charlie Brown (1/22/98)
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, represented by Jonathan Ambrose (10/3 1/97 and 1/22/98)
Joe and Dorothy Halliday (10/29/97 and 1/22/98
Louisianna-Pacific Corporation, represented by Chris Surfleet and Tom Schultz
(10/22/97, 11/10/97, 1/8/98 and 1/22/98)
Mallaird Ranch, represented by Michael Howell (11/14/98) and Larry Mallaird (1/22/98)
Non- Industrial Timber Harvesters, represented by Hammon, Jansen, Wallen & Associates (10/29/97)
Simpson Timber Company, represented by Bernie Bush (1/22/98)
Ted Stevens (10/30/97 and 1/22/98)
California Farm Bureau Federation, represented by Theresa Dennis (9/29/97, 10/22/97,
California Forestry Association, represented by Mark Rentz (10/22/97, 11/3/97 and
Forest Resource Council, represented by Madison & Sutro (1/20/98 and 1/22/98)
Gualala Redwoods, represented by John Williams (1/22/98)
Mendocino County Farm Bureau, representd by Donald Gowan (1/22/98)
PTI Environmental Services (1/7/98)
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, represented by Bill Stewart
(10/31/97,1/12/98 and 1/22/98)
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, represented by Craig Blencowe
University of California Cooperative Extension, represented by John Harper (10/3 1/97,
A summary of the comments and Regional Water Board staff responses follow.
1. COMMENT: The State should be interested in keeping EPA from taking over the program.
2. COMMENT: Because the Forest Practice Rules have already resulted in reduced sediment loads, there is no need for further action.
RESPONSE: We do not concur. Data do in fact indicate that the Garcia River is gradually moving sediment out of the lower reach of the mainstem. However, thi occurrence has not been accompanied by habitat suitable for salmonids or the return of salmonids in sustainable populations. In addition, the upper reaches of the watershed do not demonstrate the same kind of recovery as seen in the lower reaches. Data indicate that the delivery of sediment to the Garcia River Watershed due to landsliding was markedly lower in the 1975 - 1996 period as compared to the 1965-1975 period. While the enactment of the Forest Practice Rules undoubtedly has played a role in the reduction of landslide-related sediment delivery, sedimentation in the Garcia River continues to be a water quality problem. The proposed Strategy and corresponding Basin Plan amendment are intended to augment but not replace the existing Forest Practice Rules.
3. COMMENT: Because the Timber Harvest Planning process already allows for Regional Water Board input, there is no need for further action.
RESPONSE: For the reasons described in the response to Comment 2., we do not concur. Under the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, Regional Water Board staff will continue to participate in the Timber Harvest Plan (THP) review process. However, the Strategy and Basin Plan amendment will enable participants in the THP review process to address the needed sediment control issues in the Garcia River watershed. The Regional Water Board must address the issue of sediment reduction from all sources, not only from timber land.
4. COMMENT: The Strategy should follow the existing State watershed evaluation process which has a CEQA element.
RESPONSE: The Regional Water Board is proposing to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) based on the proposed Strategy and to adopt a corresponding Basin Plan amendment. The Basin Planning process has been certified as "functionally equivalent' 'to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration for the purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on this certification, the Strategy, corresponding proposed Basin Plan amendment, and the accompanying staff report including the environmental checklist, are used in lieu of a Programmatic EIR or Negative Declaration. As such, adoption of the TMDL will not result in the need for additional CEQA analysis, except in the rare instance that a Site Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan could result in new significant adverse environmental impacts.
5. COMMENT: The goals of the Strategy can be accomplished with less effort and less expense. It needs to be a practical, real program. Regional Water Board staff
need to substantially revise the Implementation Plan.
RESPONSE: We do not concur that the Implementation Plan needs to be substantially revised. The proposed Implementation Plan provides direction, yet allows landowners flexibility to direct sedimentation control efforts on their properties.
6. COMMENT: The Strategy needs to clarify the link between the study and the recommendations.
RESPONSE: The proposed Basin Plan amendment has been revised to include a linkage analysis. The linkage analysis clarifies the basis for the recommendations set forth in the proposed Basin Plan amendment.
7- COMMENT: The Strategy should be more restrictive.
RESPONSE: We do not concur that stricter measures than contained in the proposed Basin Plan amendment and Strategy are appropriate at this time. As set forth in the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, progress towards attainment will be assessed periodically, utilizing the public process. If, at a future date, the need for stricter measures becomes evident, the Regional Water Board may consider amendment of the proposed Basin Plan amendment.
8. COMMENT: The process has involved the stakeholders and should be finalized now.
9. COMMENT: Final approval of the Strategy should apply only to the Garcia River watershed.
RESPONSE: We concur. Final approval of the Strategy will apply only to the Garcia River watershed. However, because the proposed Strategy is the first among many to be considered by the Regional Water Board in the near future, many elements contained in the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment will be useful to the development of strategies in other watersheds listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list due to excessive sedimentation.
10. COMMENT: The proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment will bring litigation.
RESPONSE: Although the Regional Water Board hopes that litigation will not occur as a result of its approval of the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, the Regional Water Board staff has made an attempt to balance all interests and concerns in its proposal, and continues to consider suggestions to achieve the goals as required by the CWA.
Comments on the Problem Statement
11. COMMENT: The Regional Water Board needs to consider impacts of large populations of predators.
RESPONSE: The issue of concern to the Strategy is sedimentation, although it is recognized that there are a variety of factors which may be limiting salmonids in
the Garcia River watershed. The Regional Water Board, however, only has authority to address the issues related specifically to water quality.
Comments on the Numeric Targets
12. COMMENT: There are too many numeric targets. They should be limited to those which are related to the source, which is hillslopes.
RESPONSE: The proposed numeric targets relate to each of the life stages of salmonids for which potential problems were identified. In addition, parameters relating to stream channel stability were also identified. Citing a large number of numeric targets allows flexibility for monitoring plan design. Under the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, the measurement of all the proposed parameters will not be necessary at every monitoring location because not every monitoring location will support the variety of life stages of concern.
13. COMMENT: Are the numeric targets enforceable or not? Must they be achieved by 2048?
RESPONSE: The numeric targets are not enforceable. It is predicted that the Strategy will result in the attainment of beneficial uses, including the numeric targets, by the year 2048.
14. COMMENT: The embryo salmonid development numeric target (percent fines <0.85 mm) is a concern. The Bums data is the only data which covers an area similar to the Garcia River watershed and should be used as the basis for the numeric target.
RESPONSE: The proposed target represents a reasonable goal as derived from the scientific literature. The proposed numeric target for percent fines <0.85 mm. takes Bums data into account but adjusts it based on the results of other studies throughout the Pacific Northwest.. However, as site specific data is collected in the Garcia River watershed, the percent fines target, as well as others, will be adjusted to better reflect the site specific conditions.
15. COMMENT: The Strategy must specify whether the percent fines target applies in an existing or potential redd.
RESPONSE: Stream bed samples are to be collected in pool tailouts as early as possible in the summer. They are not to be collected in existing redds.
Comments on the Source Assessment
16. COMMENT: The Strategy and proposed Basin Plan amendment should clarify the basis for determining an acceptable sediment loading rate for the Garcia River.
RESPONSE: The proposed Basin Plan amendment has been revised to address this concern. In preparing the Strategy, Regional Water Board staff reviewed existing, available data for the Garcia River watershed and used this information to estimate a loading appropriate for the Garcia River watershed. However, the available data were only sufficient to develop a preliminary sediment budget. The preliminary sediment budget identifies both inputs and outputs due to mass wasting, fluvial erosion, and surface erosion, and demonstrates that land use activities deliver sediment to the watershed far in excess of natural processes. Until better data can be collected, the Strategy makes the conservative assumption that if all controllable sources of sediment are controlled, sediment delivery will approach that of the natural erosion processes. A time frame of 40 years is proposed to conduct altered land management activities and mitigations and evaluate the degree of instream. recovery. Should hillslope activities provide the reductions necessary to restore water quality before completion of the actions proposed in the Strategy, it will be revised to reflect that fact.
17. COMMENT: Extraction should be used to remove the excess sediment in the Garcia River.
RESPONSE: Extraction of sediment from the stream channel may be appropriate in some areas but does not represent an appropriate overall solution to the problem of excessive sedimentation in the Garcia River. The restoration of a fisheries habitat over the long-term must also be a consideration. The most effective long-term strategy for the recovery of the Garcia River watershed as a salmonid stream is the reduction of sediment delivery from the hillside to stream channel.
18. COMMENT: Timber causes more of the problem than does agriculture.
RESPONSE: The Strategy indicates that that roads are the major controllable source of sediment to the Garcia River watershed. While road densities on timber lands are generally far greater than elsewhere in the basin, roads are nonetheless used in the operation of any number of land use activities within the Garcia River watershed.
Comments on the Allocations of Responsibility
19. COMMENT: The allocations may not represent necessary reductions.
RESPONSE: The Strategy and proposed Basin Plan amendment provides a means for landowners who discharge or potentially discharge sediment to the Garcia River to identify and assess the potential and existing sediment delivery sites on their properties. As described in the proposed Strategy, the assessment should include an estimate of the amount of sediment delivered from sediment producing sites (from gully erosion scars, for example) or the amount of sediment potentially delivered from sites (from under-sized culverts, for example). The full inventory of sediment delivery sites across a property would provide an overall estimate of the amount of sediment on the hillslope delivered and perched for delivery. The Strategy calls for a 10 percent per year reduction in sediment yield until a 90 percent reduction in sediment delivery is achieved
Comments on the Implementation Plan
20. COMMENT: Each property should be treated individually.
RESPONSE: We concur. The proposed Basin Plan and Strategy encourages landowners to develop Site Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plans to address the particular problems identified in each property.
21. COMMENT: A Sustained Yield Plans might not be adequate as a Site Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan.
RESPONSE: Under the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, Regional Water Board staff will review and assess the water quality elements of a Sustained Yield Plan which is submitted as a Site Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan, and either recommend it for approval by the Executive Officer or provide recommendations for modifications to the landowner. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection will continue to have responsibility for approving Sustained Yield Plans.
22. COMMENT: How will the Site Specific Sediment Reduction Plans be measured and judged?
RESPONSE: As proposed, the Site Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan must include the following six elements: 1) a baseline data inventory; 2) a sediment reduction schedule; 3) an assessment of unstable areas; 4) a description of land management measures to control sediment delivery; 5) a description of land management measures to improve the condition of the riparian management zone; and 6) a monitoring plan. It is expected that each Site Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan will be different based on the landowner's preferred method of land management, scientific literature, and the specific conditions of the property in question. The proposed Basin Plan amendment has been revised to clarify the necessary elements of a Site Specific Plan.
23. COMMENT: Under the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, the Regional Water Board will become a land management agency.
RESPONSE: As a resource protection agency, the Regional Water Board is responsible for ensuring the restoration and protection of water quality necessary to support beneficial uses. As stated in the 1988 Non-Point Source Management Plan and restated in the proposed Strategy, the Porter-Cologne Act constrains Regional Water Boards from specifying the manner for compliance with water quality standards. The proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment are intended to fulfill the requirement of Section 303(d) of the CWA.
24. COMMENT: Ile Implementation Plan should be separated from the TMDL which is submitted to EPA.
RESPONSE: We do not concur. A TMDL acceptable to EPA does not need to contain an implementation plan or a monitoring plan. However, states are responsible to identify measures needed to implement the TMDL.
25. COMMENT: Voluntary efforts will meet the goals of the Strategy.
RESPONSE: We do not concur. Voluntary efforts to date have not resulted in sufficient improvement of water quality and habitat conditions necessary to support sustainable populations of salmonids. The proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment encourage voluntary efforts but also contain a regulatory element which the Regional Water Board may apply if needed.
26. COMMENT: The proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment should include a regulatory element because the record shows that voluntary efforts not working.
RESPONSE: We concur. See the response to Comment # 25,
27. COMMENT: The Riparian Management Zone area as it pertains to livestock grazing appears to be a permanent exclusion which is unnecessary. Livestock should not be excluded from the Riparian Management Zone.
RESPONSE: A landowner who does not believe the measures described under the proposed Garcia River Sedimentation Reduction Plan are suitable to his/her property has the option to develop a Site Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan instead. Under the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, if the measures described in the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan do not appear to work well on a particular property, the landowner may submit a letter describing alternatives to the measures in question, such as rotational grazing, providing off-strearn water supply for livestock, or other measures, and justification of their efficacy. The Regional Water Board will evaluate land management activities for agricultural operations in terms of their compliance with the California Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan as well as the Strategy. Under the proposed Basin Plan amendment and Strategy, if a landowner can conduct land management activities, including activities within the riparian zone, without causing discharges of sediment, there would be no need to implement either a Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan or the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan.
28. COMMENT: The 25-foot no commercial harvest zone is a private property taking.
RESPONSE: The 25-foot no commercial harvest zone is specified to provide large woody debris and stream bank stability for control of sediment and stream pool formation for aquatic habitat for those implementing the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan. Under the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment, if a landowner can demonstrate that there are sufficient pools and woody debris for aquatic habitat on his/her property, the 25-foot no commercial harvest zone can be reduced by submitting a Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan.
29. COMMENT: The dates which limit winter work are not justified.
RESPONSE: The proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment contains dates in the Garcia River Sedimentation Reduction Plan section. These dates provide recommended procedures for general land use activities in the riparian management zone. If a landowner wishes to manage his land use in the riparian zone outside of the recommended dates, he has the option of submitting a Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan which will provide his own proposal for controlling excess sedimentation.
30. COMMENT: Implementation measures such as the tree retention requirements have no direct bearing on sediment delivery.
RESPONSE: All of the measures proposed in the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan have an influence on sediment delivery either through direct reduction (e.g., road construction standards) or indirect reduction (e.g., sediment filtering through the riparian zone). Tree retention in the riparian management zone provides for recruitment of large woody debris which serves to control in-channel transportation of sediment and to influence channel structure positively. Tree retention, along with shrubs and forbs, also serves to control the delivery of sediment through the riparian zone by filtering sediment.
Comments on the need for technical and financial assistance
31. COMMENT: Landowners need technical assistance.
RESPONSE: Regional Water Board staff and others are available to provide technical assistance when requested. The proposed Strategy includes a list of formal and informal sources of technical assistance.
32. COMMENT: The annual reporting and inventory requirements need to be funded.
RESPONSE: Much of the inventory described in the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment is basic to good land stewardship and may already be anticipated by a landowner. Other regulatory programs, such as Timber Harvest Review, require inventories that the landowner may submitted to the satisfy the reporting and inventory requirements of the proposed Strategy and Basin Plan amendment. The Education and Assistance Section of the proposed Strategy identifies funding options that might be used.
33. COMMENT: The economic impacts will be excessive.
RESPONSE: The discussion of economics contained in the Staff Report includes the perspectives of both resources protection and estimated costs of compliance to the proposed Basin Plan amendment. The discussion used comments received from the State Water Board Economic Analysis Unit of the Office of Statewide Consistency that indicated in fact that the loss of fishery in the Garcia River exceeds the costs of implementing the proposed Basin Plan amendment.
34. COMMENT: The time frames are unreasonable.
Comments on the proposed Basin Plan amendment
35. COMMENT: The Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan will become enforceable once it is in the Basin Plan.
RESPONSE: The Strategy and the corresponding Basin Plan amendment state
that the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan does not apply
to those landowners who either have an approved Site Specific Sedimentation
Reduction Plan or whose land management activities do not result in the
discharge of sediment. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be enforced
against those categories of landowners. All other landowners must either
implement the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan or face
potential enforcement for violations of the prohibitions against discharges
or placement of sediment. The Regional Water Board staff expect that CDF
will apply the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan measures,
instead of applying the sediment prohibitions, in approving Timber Harvest
Plans for timber owners who do not have an approved Site Specific Sedimentation
Reduction Plan if there is a potential for their activities to result in
the discharge or placement of sediment.
