Science for Solutions

NOAA COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM

Decision Analysis Series No. 8

WATERSHED RESTORATION

A Guide for Citizen Involvement in California

William M. Kier Associates

Sausalito, California

December 1995

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration D. James Baker, Under Secretary

Coastal Ocean Office

Donald Scavia, Director
This publication should be cited as:

Kier (William M.) Associates. 1995. Watershed Restoration--A Guide for Citizen Involvement in

California. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 8. NOAA Coastal Ocean

Office, Silver Spring, MD. 114 pp. + 3 appendices.

This publication does not constitute an endorsement of any commercial product or

intend to be an opinion beyond scientific or other results obtained by the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). No reference shall be made

to NOAA, or this publication furnished by NOAA, in any advertising or sales

promotion which would indicate or imply that NOAA recommends or endorses any

proprietary product mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an interest to

cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because

of this publication.
Note to Readers

Watershed Restoration: A Guide for Citizen Involvement in California was developed by

William M. Kier Associates with funding from the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program (COP). The

format and intended audience are unlike any other document COP has published to date. Most

COP studies are aimed at the coastal management audience. This document is aimed at the

public in coastal watersheds in whose hands the ultimate management of coastal resources

resides. COP is publishing this document in the belief that coastal watershed restoration is an

important aspect of improving coastal resources, that it is best accomplished when citizens are

actively involved in the process, and that this effort deserves the best science and technical tools

which this document aims to provide.

COP provides a focal point through which NOAA, together with other organizations with

responsibilities for the coastal environment and its resources, can make significant strides toward

finding solutions to critical problems. By working together toward these solutions, we can

ensure the sustainability of these coastal resources and allow for compatible economic

development that will enhance the well-being of the Nation now and in future generations. The

goals of the program parallel those of the NOAA Strategic Plan.

A specific objective of COP is to provide the highest quality scientific information to coastal

managers in time for critical decision making and in a format useful for these decisions. To help

achieve this, COP inaugurated a program of developing documents that would synthesize

information on issues that were of high priority to coastal managers. A three-step process was

used to develop such documents: 1) to compile a list of critical topics in the coastal ocean

through a survey of coastal resource managers and to prioritize and select those suitable for the

document series through the use of a panel of multidisciplinary technical experts; 2) to solicit

proposals to do research on these topics and select principal investigators through a rigorous

peer-review process; and 3) to develop peer-reviewed documents based on the winning

proposals. Seven topics were selected in the initial round, but the series is expanding because of

the suitability of findings from other COP-funded research to appear in this synthesis format.

The documents already published are listed on the inside back cover.

As with all of its products, COP is very interested in ascertaining the utility of the Decision

Analysis Series particularly in regard to its application to the management decision process.

Therefore, we encourage you to write, fax, call, or E-mail us with your comments. Please be

assured that we will appreciate these comments, either positive or negative, and that they will

help us direct our future efforts. Our address and telephone and fax numbers are on the inside

front cover. My Internet address is DSCAVIA@COP.NOAA.GOV.

(Donald Scavia

Director

NOAA Coastal Ocean Program
b WATERSHED RESTORATION : A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

BILL KIER heads William M. Kier Associates, consultants in natural resources

planning, management and policy analysis. Mr. Kier is a certified fisheries scientist

whose work has involved both field research and management with the California

Department of Fish &Game, where he was chief of the environmental services branch.

From 1967 until 1983 he served the California State Senate as its principal consultant

in natural resources conservation and environmental protection. His firm has been

active since 1986 on behalf of government agencies and businesses performing

watershed and fisheries assessments, restoration planning and implementation, and

ecosystem monitoring and evaluation.

DEBRA CALDON served as EPA’s Region 9 Nonpoint Source Coordinator from 1986

to 1990 administering nearly $20 million in grant funds to local government and

nonprofit agencies for watershed planning and restoration in California. Ms. Caldon

specializes in watershed assessment, community-based planning and strategies for

implementing environmentally sustainable practices. She has been involved in several

watershed projects including Tomki Creek and the Garcia River in Mendocino

County, Sonoma Creek in Sonoma County, Pescadero Creek in San Mateo County,

the Forest Practice Rules Monitoring Program and Rangelands Water Quality

Assessment for the State Board of Forestry. In 1994, EPA awarded her the Hal Wise

Award for exceptional leadership in promoting the control of nonpoint sources and the

ecological management and restoration of watersheds.

GOIJA POST, cover illustration artist, is a native of the Pacific Coast. She received a

degree in Studio Art and Scientific Illustration from University of California - Santa

Cruz in 1990. Her hometown of Point Arena, California provides an ideal and

inspiring location to pursue her career in the visual arts. She is adept in all mediums,

from ‘recycled garbage art’ cars to fine realistic illustration. Through her business

GoijaArt, she is an active in the growing Point Arena art community and a member

of several watershed restoration groups.
4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
H Contents

4 Executive Summary ........................................................ ix

ACRONYMS LIST........................................................................................... xi

1 b Introduction

A.WHAT IS A WATERSHED............................................................... 1-1

B. AN OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS~.......... 1-2

c. WHY LOCAL COMMUNITIES NEED TO BE ACTIVE IN WATERSHED PROTECTION 1-3

D. AN OVERVIIEW OF CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL WATERSHEDS ............... 1-5

E . NEED FOR THIS GUIDE................................................................ . 1-15

2 b Understanding the Science and Management of Watersheds

A. RESTORATION GOALS .............................................................. 2-1

B. DOCUMENTING THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR WATERSHED ..................... 2-3

Finding Watershed Expertise ............................................................... 2-5

Finding Existing Information and Using Data ...................................... 2-9

C. INFORMATION STRENGTHENS THE PUBLIC’S COMMITMENT To RESTORE

KLAMATH RIVER FISH............................................................ 2-l 4

D. FILLING DATA GAPS: CITIZEN’S MONITORING ............................. 2-l 7

Coyote Creek Riparian Station .......................................................... 2-l 7

3 & Tools for Finding Solutions to Problems

A. REGULATORY AGENCIES AND MECHANISMS .................................... 3-l

The Federal Clean Water Act and EPA.. ............................................... 3-1

NOAA and the Coastal Zone Management Act.................................... 3-3

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and

the Porter - Cologne Act ............................................................... 3-6

B. OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LAWS.. ....................................... 3-9

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................................................... 3-10

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)) ...................................................................................... 3-l 2

C. STATE AGENCIES THAT ASSIST IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT .......... 3-14

D. A WORD ABOUT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................ 3-21

Sonoma Valley Grape Growers Come Together.. .............................. 3-22

E. GETTING AGENT ASSISTANCE ................................................. 3-23

Assistance Checklist.. ........................................................................ 3-24

WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA 4 vii
Contents

4 b Organizing Your Community to Win Cooperation

A.

B.

C.

D.

CONSENT BUILDING ON THE GARCIA RIVER................................ ..4_ 1

Initiating Community-Based Watershed Planning.. ............................... 4-4

CREATING NATURAL ALLIES - NAPA RIVER OWNERS MANUAL .........4- 7

MAKE YOUR PROBLEM AN OPPORTUNITY -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AND WATERSHED RESTORATION .............................................. .4_1()

Assessing Economic Benefits of Watershed Protection.. ...................... 4-l 0

Watershed Restoration and Jobs ........................................................ 4-l 4

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION .................................................... 4-16

Education - The “Adopt-A-Watershed” Concept .............................. 4-l 8

5 4 Getting It On the Ground - What Works

A. THE BEST LAID PLANS .............................................................. 5-1

B. PLANNING FOR ACTION .............................................................. 5-2

Developing an Action Plan ................................................................. 5-3

C. SMALL Is BEAUTIFUL -STEMPLE CREEK AND “THE SHRIMP CLUB” .....5- 5

D. URBAN WATERSHED PLANNING .................................................. 5-6

E. LIFE 0N THE LOST COAST........................................................ 5-9

6 4 Networking Directory

A LIST OF WATERSHED GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS ...................... ...6- 1

AGENCY N ETWORKING ................................................................6-1 1

California’s Resource Conservation Districts ...................................... 6-l 1

State Agency Contacts ...................................................................... 6-l 6

Regional Contacts.. ........................................................................... 6-20

Federal Agency Contacts.. ................................................................. 6-21

Appendix A 4 Making Meetings Work A-l

Appendix B b Successful Funding

A. FUNDING SOURCESS ................................................................ B-1

Grant Funding .................................................................................... B-1

Private Foundations and Grants -

The Foundation Center Library.. .................................................... B-8

Loans - The State Revolving Fund (SRF)) ........................................... B-10

B. WRITING GRANTS THAT GET FUNDED.. ..................................... B-1 2

C. STRUCTURING THE PROPOSAL. ................................................ B-1 8

4 Watershed References ............................................. R-l

viii 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
4 Executive Summary

There is nothing mysterious about how coastal rivers, their estuaries, and their

relationship with the sea all work to satisfy many of our greatest needs, including

drinkable water, fish and shellfish, and soils essential for sustaining the production of

food and fiber. Nor are the methods that have proved successful in the protection and

restoration of watershed health difficult to understand. It is difficult, however, to

imagine how we are to survive without healthy watersheds. Each watershed along

California’s coast shows signs of increasing abuse from road construction and

maintenance, livestock grazing, residential development, timber harvesting, and a

dozen other human activities. In some cases whole streams have simply been wiped

away.

This document has been created to guide and support every person in the community,

from homemaker to elected official, who wants her or his watershed to provide clean

water, harvestable fish resources and other proof that life in the watershed cannot only

be maintained but also enjoyed. It is based on years of experience with watershed

protection and restoration in California. If citizen involvement is to be effective, it

must draw not only on scientific knowledge but also on an understanding of how to

translate individual views into commitments and capable group action.

This guide briefly reviews the condition of California’s coastal watersheds, identifies

the kinds of concerns that have led citizens to successful watershed protection efforts,

explains why citizen, in addition to government, effort is essential for watershed

protection and restoration to succeed, and puts in the reader’s hands both the technical

and organizational “tools of the trade” in the hope that those who use this guide will

be encouraged to join in efforts to make their watershed serve this and future

generations better.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Ocean

Program (COP) funds high-quality scientific research aimed at finding solutions to

our most pressing coastal ocean problems. COP funded William M. Kier Associates

to produce this watershed restoration manual in the belief that watershed restoration

is an important aspect of improving coastal ocean resources. Restoration is best

accomplished when the communities affected by the conditions in the watershed take

part in the process. Therefore, COP encourages coastal ocean communities to become

actively involved in the management of their watersheds, and strives to provide the best

science and technical tools to assist these efforts. Our hope is that the guidance in this

handbook provides both.

Timeliness of the Material in this Guide

This guide was prepared in the summer of 1995. During this period environmental

laws were going through an unprecedented number of reviews and possible revisions.

At the time this guide was printed Congress had not completed its reauthorization of

these laws and there may well be significant changes. It is our goal to provide a

foundation of information concerning these laws and agency sources to aid your

understanding of their current status.
& WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
ACRONYMS LIST

n

ABAG

AMBAG

BMPs

ccc

CEQA

COP

corps

CRMP

CWA

CWPI

CWRC

CZARA

CZMA

DFG

DWR

EPA

EPIC

ESIC

ESA

FrOG

FWS

GIS

HSU

IRE

KRIS

LCP

MELVYL

MOU

MRC

NCCP

NDDB

NEPA

NERRS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

NPS BBS

NRCS

OCLC

RCD

RWQCB

SANDAG

SCAG

SLC

SWRCB

UC

USGS

WDR

WMC

WRC

Association of Bay Area Governments

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments

Best Management Practices

Calfomia Coastal Commission

California Environmental Quality Act

Coastal Ocean Program

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Coordinated Resource Management and Planning

Federal Clean Water Act

California Watershed Project Inventory

California Water Resources Center (University of California)

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

California Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Water Resources

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Protection Information Center

Earth Science Information Center (USGS)

Federal Endangered Species Act

Friends of the Garcia River

Fish and Wildlife Service

Geographic Information System

Humboldt State University

Institute for River Ecosystems (Humboldt State University)

Klamath Resource Information System

Local Coastal Plan (California Coastal Commission)

University of California online library catalog system

Memorandum of Understanding

Mattole Restoration Council

Natural Community Conservation Plan

Natural Diversity Data Base (Cal Dept. of Fish and Game)

National Environmental Policy Act

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NOAA)

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Park Service

Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board System (EPA)

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Online Computer Library Center

Resource Conservation District

Regional Water Quality Control Board

San Diego Association of Governments

Southern California Association of Governments

California State Lands Commission

California State Water Resources Control Board

University of California

U.S. Geological Survey

Waste Discharge Requirements

Watershed Management Council

Wildland Resources Center
4 WATERSHED R ESTORATIO N: A GUIDE FOR C ITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
encompass a watershed of thousands of square miles. Most large watersheds are made

up of several smaller watersheds associated with tributary rivers and feeder streams

that contribute flow from areas known as sub-basins. Watersheds are ultimately

defined by gravity. When you want to define a watershed you begin by selecting the

stream or river that is of interest; the drainage area is then defined by a boundary of

ridgetops. A drop of water falling on the top of that ridge will flow by gravity into your

watershed or to the other side into an adjacent watershed depending on the topography

or lay of the land.

For most of us, watersheds are more

than just drainage areas. They are the

place where we live, work and recreate.

Watersheds provide habitat for wild

creatures and biological diversity in

the midst of otherwise human

sameness. Today it may be difficult to

visualize your watershed - in urban

areas many streams have been

“undergrounded” or culverted so that

it is hard to place where local creeks

once flowed -but you are part of a

watershed nonetheless. In this guide,

we have taken the concept of watershed

to define not just a drainage area but a

way of organizing community

environmental interests to improve

water quality, fisheries and wildlife

habitat, and the local quality of life. One of our goals is to increase the awareness of

the importance of watersheds to our environment. If this guide inspires you to do

nothing else but find out which watershed(s) you live in, then we have made some

progress. Beyond that our main purpose is to provide tools and a network for local

citizens to organize better around the environmental issues in their respective

watersheds. Although we are focused on coastal California watersheds, the approaches

contained in this guide can be applied, easily, to watersheds elsewhere.
Coastal watersheds are among the most productive ecosystems in the nation. While

all watersheds provide critical habitat for aquatic species of birds and other animals,

coastal watersheds are essential for anadromous fish like salmon that are dependent

upon a healthy estuary and river channel for spawning and rearing habitat. In

California, coastal watersheds are also essential to human welfare as some 18 million

of our 30 million state residents live in these coastal watersheds1 The streams in

coastal watersheds supply clean water for drinking, recreation, industry and farming,

as well as inspiration in our daily lives.

B. AN OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

ACT AMENDMENTS

In the last fifty years rapid population growth in coastal areas has created conflicts

between human use of these watersheds and the protection of water quality necessary

to support fisheries and municipal water supplies. To this end, Congress has enacted

several laws aimed at improving and maintaining beneficial water quality and

protecting coastal resources. Such laws include the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) which are discussed in greater detail in

Chapter 3. Each of these laws is administered by separate state and federal agencies:

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administer the Clean Water Act; and National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the California Coastal

Commission administer the CZMA. Each has different but related goals of protecting

the coastal environment. In 1990, Congress adopted section 62 17 of the Coastal Zone

Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) that requires that coastal states with

coastal management programs, such as California, develop a stronger link between

coastal zone management and water quality pollution control programs. This goal is

to be accomplished through the adoption of “coastal nonpoint programs” that

“implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore and

protect coastal waters . . .“2

This program is important to local coastal watershed activists because it

requires that the California State Water Resources Control Board work with

the Coastal Commission to:

4 implement management measures (also known as “best management practices”)

for land uses that degrade coastal waters;

1 California Comprehensive Offshore Resource Study: Volume I. 1994. California State Lands

Commission.

2 Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval

Guidance. October 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

l-2 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
4 provide technical and other assistance to local governments and the public

to implement management measures;

4 provide opportunities for public participation in all aspects of the program;

4 improve coordination between state and local agencies responsible for land use

permitting, habitat protection, and public health and safety.

NOAA and EPA have already provided the public a thorough reference document

detailing minimum standards for management measures that should be used to

protect watersheds under the coastal nonpoint program. Arranged by the type of land

use (agricultural, urban, marinas, etc.), this Guidance Specifying Management

Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters? lists a range of

practices including design specifications, costs, effectiveness and monitoring that

should be used to protect waterbodies from

degradation by common land uses. When

developing a local watershed plan, these Management Measures are defined as:

measures can be used as plan “economically achievable measures for the

recommendations. Further, this Guidance is control of the addition of pollutants from

an excellent tool to use to ensure that local existing and new categories and classes of

public officials require that new development nonpoint sources of pollution, which reflect

projects and existing land uses are adequately the greatest degree of pollutant reduction

mitigated to compensate for the pollution achievable through the application of the best

available nonpoint pollution control practices,

generated by such activities. technologies, processes, siting criteria,

operating methods, or other alternatives.“4

C. WHY LOCAL COMMUNITIES NEED TO BE ACTIVE IN

WATERSHED PROTECTION

To former Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neil’s famous quotation, “All

politics are local,” could be added “and all watershed planning is intensely political.”

Whether you are politically active or not, local authorities are making decisions every

day regarding land use, zoning and developments that affect the quality of your

environment and the watershed where you live. Today most land use decisions require

a public participation process that allows for public review and comment on the

project? Besides local land use laws, the State of California requires analyses of

potential environmental impacts of governmental actions under the California

3 Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal

Waters. 1993. U.S. EPA.

4 Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, $ 6217.

5 California Land Use and Planning Law. 1993. Daniel J. Curtin, Jr.

INTRODUCTION b l-3
Why local Communities Need to be Active in Watershed Protection

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA, too, requires public review of

Environmental Impact Reports that allows citizens to object to environmentally

unsound development proposals6

Although public participationis still important, the local community is often involved

at the very end of the process and consequently is caught in a situation of trying to stop

a train that is picking up speed. This can be frustrating and certainly contributes to that

sense of apathy supporting the notion that “You can’t fight City Hall.” While it is true

that one person will quickly tire of trying to keep up with all the decisions that affect

the environment of his or her community, a group of concerned citizens can effectively

influence public policies within their areas of interest. Organizing around only one

particular project or problem at a time means that the group may be caught up fighting

a series of disconnected projects or decisions with no end in sight.

There is another way. In this guide we have gathered examples of citizens’ groups that

have gotten in front of the decision-making process and have set goals and policies

for the future by developing plans for their watersheds.

These groups have common elements. They are composed of local activists that have

effectively built a constituency to support watershed protection. They have recognized

that development interests often have financial clout and powerful economic arguments

that support them in pursuing their ends. Developers frequently espouse the idea that

they represent “progress” and improvement for the local economy. To counter this

strong bias towards “progress” and the “economy,” watershed groups have come to

understand the importance of organization, information gathering, networking, and

political strategies. While these groups have worked with local, state and federal

agencies, they have not waited for government agencies to take the lead in formulating

watershed goals and plans.

Why, you may ask, must regular citizens spend time on such issues when there are state

and federal agencies which have the responsibility to protect the environment? The

fact is that most agencies are woefully understaffed and underfunded for the task of

protecting every watershed in the State. Often, agencies may be constrained from

involving themselves in local issues without explicit requests from local authorities or

organizations. Even though your watershed may suffer from serious environmental

impacts, the way to ensure that these problems receive proper attention is through a

systematic effort to raise the awareness of the problem in your local community and

to communicate this awareness to the responsible authorities. This is best done

through citizens’ organizations that are focused on identifying and solving local

watershed problems.

6 Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1993. Michael Remy, et al.

l-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
If you care about the environment and especially about your local quality of life then

you may wish to join a local watershed group or “friends of a river” association. If

there isn’t one in your watershed then perhaps it is time to organize such a group whose

goal is to develop a blueprint or plan for protecting your watershed. The last chapter

of this guide contains a list of existing organizations that you may want to join or that

can help you start an organization in your watershed. We hope that this guide will help

you to get involved, or if you are already part of a group, our aim is to help you be more

effective.

D. AN OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL WATERSHEDS

Issues and Citizen Involvement

Along the coast from the Oregon border to the Tijuana River community-based

watershed groups have organized around resource issues that range from flood control

to wastewater treatment. These groups have plucked up the tools that exist in

environmental laws and used them to drive stream protection efforts. They have

learned that fish and endangered species populations are powerful stream health

indicators and that protecting and maintaining their habitats, in turn, provides an

opportunity to achieve an improved quality of life for all watershed residents. The

following provides an overview of the range of problems found in coastal watersheds

and the creative solutions that watershed activists have devised to counter such

problems.

CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL WATERSHED REGIONS

1. Smith River, Redwood

Creek, Mad River

Region

2. Klamath - Trinity River

Basin

3. Mattole, Eel and Van

Duzen Rivers

4. Marin, Sonoma and

Mendocino County

Coastal Streams

5. Russian River

6. San Francisco Bay

Streams

7. Central Coast Streams

8. South Coast Streams

INTRODUCTION 4 l-5
An Overview of California’s Coastal Watersheds

1. North Coast - Smith River to Humboldt Bay

This reach of California’s coast extends from the Oregon state line south to Humboldt

Bay. Although the reach includes the Klamath River, the Klamath deserves and gets

its own discussion just below. The Smith, Mad and Redwood Creek are smaller, less

complex systems than the Klamath.

Smith River

The Smith, squeezed into the State’s northwest comer, is well forested, lightly logged

and, until quite recently, very lightly populated. The Smith continues to produce some

of the largest chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) of any river in California

and is widely viewed as northwest California’s only unspoiled river. Public concern

for the Smith became very vocal in the late 1980s following an announcement by the

State that it would build a large prison near the river. Since the only wastewater

treatment plant in the area was incapable of serving the prison, the State proposed

using an unproven wastewater treatment technology viewed by many as a severe threat

to the Smith’s high water quality.

Opposition to the proposed prison wastewater system came first from the area’s small

conservation community and finally from Del Norte County’s principal health

official. The opposition became so intense the State scrapped its original plan and

adopted a tertiary treatment system that has, ironically, become the pride of the

California correctional establishment. Close monitoring indicates the system is

working well.

The prison wastewater campaign energized Smith River area conservation interests,

who then proceeded to lobby Congress successfully to create the Smith River National

Recreation Area (NRA). The Smith River NRA designation overlays the watershed’s

National Forest jurisdiction in ways that the river’s champions, which include the

citizen-based Smith River Alliance, hope will bring lasting protections to the stream’s

fish and water resources.

The ancient mouth of the Smith River is now a pair of coastal lakes where controversy

common in more developed areas has only recently cropped up: dispute over whether

to breach the sandbar that separates the lakes, Earl and Talawa, from the ocean during

dry seasons. The lakes are managed by the State Department of Fish and Game whose

waterfowl managers want to keep the sandbar intact and the lake levels high. Fish

conservation interests, on the other hand, want migratory fish like coho salmon

(Onchorhynchus kisutch) to have free access from the ocean to the lakes and their

feeder streams. The National Marine Fisheries Service’s summer, 1995 recommendation

to list the coho as threatened under the terms of the federal Endangered Species Act

may ultimately decide the sandbar breaching dispute in favor of the fish.

m Contact:

da

Smith River Alliance: Larry Moss at 707/ 677- 3324

Smith River Advisory Council: Jim Walvogel at 707/464 - 4711

1-6 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Redwood Creek

Redwood Creek lies just south of the Klamath and runs from private timber and

grazing lands down through the Redwood National Park before reaching the Pacific

Ocean at Orick. Activity in the Redwood Creek watershed is of great concern to the

Redwood National Park staff because many of the values for which Congress acquired

the Park 20 years ago depend on channel stability and high water quality in the creek.

The Park staff has, therefore, functioned much like a community “watershed watch”

group. Redwood Creek’s salmon population plummeted following the loss in the

1960s of the wetlands in its lower reach to a federal flood control project. National

Park Service plans to restore some of the wetlands by acquiring pasture land and

breaching one of the flood control levees has been stalled for years for lack of funds.

Mad River

The Mad River watershed has along history of intensive logging and dam development

which has left its lower reach, just north of Humboldt Bay, buried in eroded gravel and

finer sediments. The growing Humboldt Bay community now stores its water in the

Mad’s headwaters near Ruth; releases it down the river and recovers it from streambed

collectors just above tidewater. The community has a direct stake in the health of the

Mad River watershed, therefore, and has exercised it with increasing concemin recent

years.

Contact: Northcoast Environmental Center, Tim McKay l 707/ 822-7237

2. Klamath-Trinity River Basin

The Klamath River, including its principal tributaries the Trinity, Shasta, Scott and

Salmon rivers and over 200 smaller feeder streams, drains nearly 10,000 square miles

of southern Oregon and northwestern California. Three-quarters of the watershed is

within the boundaries of the Klamath, Six Rivers, Shasta-Trinity and Winema

National Forests. The communities in the watershed have participated vigorously in

the recent debate over how these public lands should be managed, particularly

concerning timber harvesting. The watershed’s Indian peoples, the Yurok, Hoopa,

Karuk and Klamath tribes, have become increasingly involved within the past decade

in public water, timber and fish resource protection and allocation decisions.

Because the watershed’s salmon resource has plummeted in the last two to three

decades, Congress has authorized multimillion dollar fish restoration programs for the

Trinity and mainstem Klamath rivers. Coordinated resource management and planning

(CRMP) “stakeholder” groups have formed in the Shasta, Scott and South Fork

Trinity sub-basins largely to interact with these federal restoration programs. Citizen

action groups have sprung up in the past decade, most on a sub-basin “neighborhood

watershed watch” basis, but at least one (Friends of the Trinity River) arose from

sharp disagreement over the restoration measures undertaken by federal program

managers. It would appear at this point that watershed protection and restoration

efforts in the Klamath-Trinity watershed are replete with plans and spending authority

and that prospects for funding, while insufficient, are well above average.

IiR

INTRODUCTION 4 l-7
An Overview of California’s Coastal Watersheds

Contact: Salmon River Restoration Council,

IiiF Peter Brucker at 916/ 462-4720

Klamath Forest Alliance, Felice Pace at 916/ 467-5405

Friends of the Trinity River: 415/ 389-l300

3. Mattole, Eel and Van Duzen Rivers

The Eel River enters the Pacific Ocean just below Humboldt Bay, the Mattole 20 miles

further down the coast. The Van Duzen is a major Eel tributary which joins the Eel

just a few miles above its mouth.

The Mattole

The Mattole is the principal drainage of California’s “Lost Coast,” the sparsely

inhabited southern coastal portion of Humboldt County. The Mattole River community,

many members of which are professionals who fled the cities more than 20 years ago,

has been deeply involved, through their nonprofit umbrella organization, the Mattole

Restoration Council (MRC), in watershed protection and restoration for the past

decade. The MRC and its member organizations provide a prime example of how a

watershed-concerned community can develop the technical and political resources

needed to sustain a program of repairing past damage and preventing further harm to

watershed values. The MRC is currently focused on the role the degradation of the

Mattole’s estuary has played in the decline of the basin’s anadromous fish resources.

Eel River

The Eel drainage is large, nearly 2 million acres. It drains the west side of the Coast

Mountain Range from southern Humboldt County to mid-Mendocino County, a

distance of 100 miles. This is highly erodible country that has been heavily damaged

by more than a century of use, principally for grazing and logging.

Much of the southern portion of the watershed is relatively dry, given over to livestock

grazing. The northern portion, that like the Van Duzen sub-basin nearer the coast, is

prime timber- and salmon-producing country. The large industrial forest tracts of this

watershed have been caught up in intense conflict over the effect of timber harvesting

on fish and wildlife values, particularly the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis

caurina), the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (a robin-sized federal

Endangered Species Act-listed bird that ranges from the ocean to heavy timber inland)

and, more recently, coho salmon and steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss).

At the same time conflict rages over timber management in the Eel watershed, the

drainage has become a California Department of Fish and Game model for large river

basin assessment and restoration planning. Cooperation between the Department and

large landowners, and between the landowners and the area’s watershed restoration

organizations, has built steadily in recent years.

n Contact:

A Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)

707/ 923-2931

l-8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
4. Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin County Streams

Mendocino County

Coastal Mendocino County is rural with small pockets of population typically

adjacent to coastal streams. Community water supply systems are small and depend

on the nearest stream. Community watershed protection concerns therefore focus on

the health of the stream that supplies each community’s drinking water. One action

group however, Friends of the Garcia River, has organized around total watershed

health concern for this 72,000-acre basin and another, the Redwood Coast Watersheds

Alliance, focuses largely on how timber harvest practices affect the water quality in

a number of Mendocino’s coastal streams.

The Mendocino County coastal watersheds have been used extensively for timber

production for a century. While early day loggers selected large trees, particularly

redwood, for their clear grain for carpentry, that “sawlog” market has changed in the

past two or three decades to one which prizes just about anything that will yield wood

fiber for lumber, particle board or paper pulp. This means that stream-loving species

like alder and cottonwood now have commercial value and that forest practice

regulations, rather than the marketplace, stand between steambank protection and

streambank denuding.

Salmon populations are an important

stream health gauge. Salmon require cool,

clear water and streambeds relatively free

of sand and silt. Unlike chinook salmon,

which migrate to the sea in the spring and

early summer after only a few nomths

residency, coho salmon remain in their

natal freshwater environment for a year

or more. Coho need cool water throughout

this prolonged nursery period. The

California Department of Fish and Game

found coho salmon in virtually every

Mendocino County coastal stream in the

mid-1950s. By the mid-1980s, of 70 streams in the area surveyed by the Department,

only 20 still supported coho, many at remnant population levels. This dramatic decline

has been attributed to the removal of shade and cover producing trees from the riparian

zone and the infilling of once-protective pools with sediments from watershed

disturbances.

Contact: Friends of the Garcia River: 707/ 882-3086

Redwood Coast Watersheds Alliance: 707/ 468-1253

Mendocino Environmental Center: Betty Bail, 707/468-1660

INTRODUCTION 4 l-9
An Overview of California’s Coastal Watersheds

Coastal Sonoma County

Although coastal Sonoma County is sparsely populated, water and land use are

critical issues. Small settlements are concerned with the management of local streams

and the lagoons that are found at the mouth of these waters. Protection of local species

of fish and aquatic wildlife have driven a great deal of community awareness. Of

course, a number of these communities are embroiled in ongoing issues surrounding

the management of the Russian River (discussed below). A sharp controversy has

developed, however, over the fast-growing inland City of Santa Rosa’s plans to build

a wastewater reservoir near Two Rock that would make releases into two small

estuaries, Estero de Americano and Estero de San Antonio, which adjoin the Gulf of

the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

Area landowners have petitioned Sonoma County’s supervisors to oppose the Two

Rock project. The manager of the National Marine Sanctuary has expressed opposition

to wastewater discharges that would endanger Gulf of the Farallones values.

s Contact: Friends of the Esteros, Kathy Tresch at 707/ 762-7952

Coastal Marin County

Coastal Marin County has a remarkably sparse population, considering that it is only

minutes from San Francisco. The County’s supervisors have strictly controlled

development of west Marin’s agricultural lands, largely dairy grazing lands. Whatever

the County has not been able to accomplish in keeping west Marin rural, the creation

and gradual expansion of the Point Reyes National Seashore/Golden Gate National

Recreation Area has. The only hitch is that populous east Marin draws much of its

water supply from west Marin’s coastal streams, particularly Lagunitas Creek.

Lagunitas Creek is the principal tributary to Tomales Bay, within the Gulf of the

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

Following a drought in the 1970s the Marin Municipal Water District increased the

size of its storage reservoir on Lagunitas Creek. This triggered formal protests from

the nonprofit Tomales Bay Association and others concerned with the health of

Lagunitas Creek and its struggling coho salmon population. The State Water

Resources Control Board recently concluded a review of the District’s water rights

which confirms that the District must release more water down Lagunitas Creek to

support fishlife. Meanwhile the steady improvement of the stream’s coho population,

through the hard work of Trout Unlimited andothers in the community, is a bright spot

in the Pacific Coast coho salmon picture.

m Contact:

A

Tomales Bay Association, Ken Fox at 415/663-l467

North Bay Chapter, Trout Unlimited: 51O/528-5390

l-10 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
5. Russian River

With a watershed of nearly one million acres the Russian is one of California’s larger

coastal streams. The basin historically hosted large populations of salmon and trout

and was celebrated by anglers for its excellent steelhead fishing. Urbanization,

particularly in the Santa Rosa area, has taken a heavy toll on the Russian’s fish habitat.

The river has been diverted for irrigation and city water and homesites have been built

on its banks, additionally, the Russian River floodplain has become the major source

of gravel for the fast-growing north San Francisco Bay region.

Opposition to increased Russian River gravel mining began in earnest in the early

1980s with fishing interests, but has since spread to area landowners, particularly

vineyard owners, who fear the effects of mining on groundwater levels and channel

stability. In fact, community organizing on behalf the Russian River has, since the

early 199Os, become a virtual textbook example of how concern for a river can provide

a synthesis for citizens’ concerns over a wider slate of community growth issues.

Under pressure from the community, Sonoma County’s supervisors have enacted

rules to wind down gravel mining in the Russian River’s floodplain. Meanwhile, the

Coastal Conservancy has enabled a community-based investigation into the river’s

present behavior and future condition as a basis for drawing up a restoration plan.

Contact: Sotoyome - Santa Rosa R.C.D. at 707/ 573-1409

Friends of the Russian River, Joan Vilms at 707/545-7572 SiF

6. San Francisco Bay Streams

Fifty-seven rivers and creeks enter San Francisco Bay, not counting the large

Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, the Bay’s principal tributaries. Battles have been

waged, at the community level, on behalf of virtually every one of these streams.

The Bay Area is a fast-growing region and much of the growth in recent decades has

occurred in floodplain areas. This floodplain urban development has been facilitated

by locally-endorsed, federally-funded flood control projects. Where these projects

were begun in the development frenzy immediately after World War II, they largely

succeeded. A case in point is the 1960s flood control project at Walnut Creek that has

virtually erased all signs of the stream that gave the town its name.

The post- War legacy of enthusiasm for flood control projects in the San Francisco Bay

area has weakened. One project that is still being discussed is the Guadalupe River in

Santa Clara County. Here, local pro-stream activists have focused media attention on

poorly designed flood control structures which make it difficult for salmon to reach

their spawning grounds. Salmon have become a powerful agent for focusing public

concern on stream health issues.

Contact: Evergreen Resource Conservation District at 408/ 288-5888 w

INTRODUCTION 4 l-1 1
An Overview of California’s Coastal Watersheds

7. Central Coast Streams

As one moves down the coast from San Francisco the communities become larger even

as rainfall and local streams shrink. These communities, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura and dozens of cities and towns further south

have experienced three generations of engineering which dammed the local streams,

piped them to the townsites, set the growth machinery in high gear and left future

generations to fathom how to sustain relentless development with finite water supplies.

Surprisingly, California’s parched central coast has spawned some of its more

creative and successful community-based watershed protection and restoration

campaigns. Citizens in the Half Moon Bay area, for example, are drawing plans to

restore Pilarcitos Creek. The headwaters of Pilarcitos were dammed in 1861 to

provide fast-growing SanFrancisco, 32 miles to the north, a dependable water supply.

In 1992 the stream was impacted again, this time by a torrent of mud which escaped

a construction site. Those responsible for the 1992 mishap have reached a $900,000

settlement with the State of California for violating stream pollution laws. The funds

underwrite Pilarcitos’ restoration, perhaps the first time in the State that stream

restoration funds have become available ahead of plans for their use.

s Contact: San Mateo County Fish & Wildlife Advisory Committee

Keith Mangold + 415/ 726-9119

Santa Cruz County

Santa Cruz is known for its progressive thinking. The combination of highly erodible

watersheds and almost total dependence on local streams to provide high-quality

drinking water has spurred the County to develop a local watershed management

program. This program serves as a model for local government-sponsored watershed

restoration that could be used by local governments throughout the state.

The Santa Cruz County Watershed Management Program has been active since the

early 1970s. The program is funded by the Flood and Water Conservation District,

a special district instituted in 1955. One of the primary charges of the District is to

monitor, protect and restore surface and ground waters in the County. These duties

are crucial for communities in the county. Local streams supply almost 70% of all the

waters used for domestic purposes and many households rely completely on the

natural water purification afforded by a healthy watershed for their high quality

drinking water.

To ensure the health of its communities in the watershed of its major river, the San

Lorenzo, the County developed the San Lorenzo River Management Plan in 1978. The

Plan was the first of its kind in the state. Plan recommendations were aimed at stopping

the degradation of the river and creating an innovative stream restoration program.

Most of the Plan’s recommendations have been implemented over the last 15 years.

During this time, the Flood and Water Conservation District Watershed Management

Program has removed all priority fish barriers to fish migration, opening prime

1-12 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
spawning habitat on over 30 miles of stream. Annually, over 30,000 hours of crew

time are devoted to restoration projects funded by the District. District funds have also

served to attract over $2,000,000 in project grants from State and federal sources to

control erosion and improve stream habitat.

Santa Cruz County is clearly ahead of its time, over the past twenty years, the County

has supported staff to monitor water quality, and has developed regulations and a

program for restoring instream habitat. The County’s program provides funding for

erosion control and enforcement of riparian protections. The District funds a water

quality monitoring lab, a hydrologist, a water planner, forester and resource planner

to carry out its program. To ensure long-term watershed protection in the face of rising

population growth, County staff have completed a Water Master Plan, a Timber

Management Plan, a Stream Survey of Fish Habitat and are in the process of updating

the San Lorenzo River Management Plan.

Santa Cruz County is not only concerned with supplying high quality water to its

human population but is also devoted to protecting native fish populations such as

coho. Coho salmon historically ranged as far south as Big Suron the Monterey County

coast, while steelheadranged south all the way to Mexico. The July 1995 announcement

by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that its has determined that three

populations of West Coast coho salmon, including the central coast’s, warrant special

protections under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) puts a new light on this

area’s struggling watershed protection and restoration efforts. In fact, the California

Fish and Game Commission has acted on a request from Santa Cruz County to list the

coho salmon of Scott and Waddell creeks under California’s Endangered Species Act

and the State has already begun to place special stream protection restrictions on

timber harvesting in that coastal area. The status of steelhead is also an issue. It is clear

that public awareness of California’s coastal watershed conditions will rise sharply

in the very near future.

Contact: Dave Hope, Santa Cruz Co. Planning Department + 408/454-3096 s

8. South Coast

As we suggested above, the paucity of rainfall along California’s southern coast seems to

make watershed activists’ efforts all the more determined A case in point is Ventura

County’s Santa Clara River, an hour north of Los Angeles and the subject of a 1987 water

rights decision by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). When the State

Department of Water Resources (not to be confused with the SWRCB) and the local water 

district sought amendments to their State rights to dam and divert the Santa Clara River

several years earlier, the California Department of Fish and Game, with urging from local

conservationists, protested the water rights changes, claiming that they would be the final

blow to the river’s surviving steelhead.

I NTRODUCTION 4 1-1 3
An Overview of California’s Coastal Watersheds

In 1982 the SWRCB approved the State and local water applications on the condition mat

a study would be conducted to determine whether steelhead were, in fact, surviving in the

Santa Clara and, if so, what it would take to assure their conservation. The Department of

Fish and Game completed the study in early 1985. The SWRCB reviewed the results,

together with the water applicants’ continued opposition to providing streamflow or other

conservation measures for the steelhead at a public hearing heldinlate 1986. The SWRCB

issued its Santa Clara River water rights decision in September 1987.

The SWRCB’s 1987 Santa Clara River water rights decision recognizes that there are

relatively few steelhead surviving in the river, but goes on to note “Restoration of

steelhead resources has been successful on other streams in California where good

habitat was available. There is some possibility that the Santa Clara River steelhead

resource could be restored if the measures sought by the Department [Fish and Game]

were implemented.” Those measures included a fish ladder and fish screen at the water

district’s diversion dam and guaranteed streamflows to assure upstream passage of

adult fish in winter and downstream passage of juvenile steelhead in springtime. To

make the basis for its actions very clear, the SWRCB includedthe following statement

in its 1987 decision: “Further, we are of the opinion that the Santa Clara River

steelhead, as an anadromous fish, is protected by the public trust doctrine. The Board

has continuing authority to adopt conditions to avoid or minimize effects on resources

protected by the public trust doctrine.“’

If the SWRCB’s position concerning its power to protect the Santa Clara River’s tiny

steelhead population is accepted, and no one has challenged it to this day, then the

same position could be taken on the Santa Ynez, the Ventura, on Malibu Creek - in

fact on any stream in California where water diversions have led to the decline of

fish populations and fish habitat. Southern California watershed activists feel

themselves empowered by the National Audubon case, the SWRCB’s ruling on the

Santa Clara River and steadily-growing public support for reversing the environmental

damage to many southern California coastal streams.

n Contact:

A Friends of the Ventura River, Mark Capelii at 805/ 682-5240

7 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County (33 Cal.3d 419 - 1983).

l-l 4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
E. NEED FOR THIS GUIDE

This guide is intended to provide groups and individuals up and down the coast with

science and organizational information that can aid their efforts to protect and restore

their valuable community watersheds. Watershed planning is most effective where

there is citizen involvement. Active community involvement ensures that the ideas of

the people most affected by the outcome are included at the front end of the planning

process. Scientists and managers are stewards of public resources, but they need

interaction with the public to understand the most appropriate way to manage these

resources to fulfill people’s goals. Since public opinions on resource issues are often

conflicting, compromise is always the key to achieving desirable action. Such

compromise is only valuable when it is based on the views of all the parties interested

in the outcome. The more citizens arc involved in watershed planning, the more

effective the planning process will be in attaining community-based goals for public

resources.

The experiences of the Californian projects surveyed in this guide, suggest that a

model watershed plan is built step-by-step using the essential tools and actions shown

in Figure 1. below. The chapters and appendices in this guide are arranged to provide

insights into each of these tools. For ease in reference we have used icons to highlight

information that you may find useful to future projects.

Building Blocks for Citizen Watershed Planning

Data Gathering Management Needs

Set Objectives

Community Organizin g

Figure 1

INTRODUCTION 4 l-1 5
Resources

LQ

4 Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint

Pollution in Coastal Waters. 1993. U.S. EPA.

4 California Land Use and Planning Law. 1993. Daniel J. Curtin, Jr.

b Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1993. Michael

Remy, et al.

l-l 6 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
2 b Understanding the Science and

Management of Watersheds I

A. RESTORATION GOALS: GUIDING LIGHTS FOR WATERSHED

REHABILITATION

Whenever we set out to restore a piece of our tattered environment we seem to run

immediately into the challenge “Restore to what?” That is not always an easy question

to answer but, until we do in some acceptable fashion, our restoration efforts will lack

the focus they need for success. Dr. Joy Zedler, professor of biology at the Pacific

Estuarine Research Laboratory in San Diego, put her finger on this aspect of the

restoration planning problem in her recent review of salt marsh rehabilitation efforts

in California where she comments, “Intuitively, the goal of restoration should be to

replace what has been lost. For several reasons, this goal is difficult to define. First,

coastal salt marshes are far from being stable ecosystems. Their topography changes

with sediment deposition and erosion; their species composition responds to variations

in tidal and riverine influences; their rates of productivity and nutrient cycling are

driven by fluxes of materials and organisms, as fresh and/or tidal water floods and

drains the intertidal zone. With such dynamic structure and function, it is difficult to

set a specific historic time or condition as a target for salt marsh restoration.“’

But Dr. Zedler is describing a technical problem in determining restoration goals.

There are many examples where restoration goals have been established through the

political process with considerable success. One of the best examples of political

restoration goal-setting is that of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

of 1972 which declared “The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters? The same section

sets down two “national goals”: (1) eliminating the discharge of pollutants into

navigable waters by 1985, and (2) achieving an interim water quality level that would

protect fish, shellfish and wildlife while providing for recreation in and on the water

wherever attainable.

These famous “fishable, swimmable” water quality restoration goals have been

debated by scientists and technologists as to their practicality and affordability, but

they are to this day the goals toward which hundreds of federal, state and municipal

laws and hundreds of millions of public and private investment dollars are dedicated.

They may be technically troublesome, but they are politically popular and that is why

they continue to provide a clear guideline for the federal Clean Water Act restoration

program.

1 Zedler, J. B . 1995. Salt Marsh Restoration: Lessons from California. Pages 75-95. In Rehabilitating

Damaged Ecosystems. John Cairns, Jr. ed. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.

2 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, $ 101[a] (33 U.S.C.466 et esq).
Restoration goals: guiding lights for watershed rehabilitation

n

Another example, absolutely applicable to California’s coastal watersheds, is the

“salmon doubling” policy established by the State’s Secretary for Resources nearly

20 years ago. The Secretary adopted salmon as an important element in his

Administration’s statewide resource renewal program and, challenged to define the

extent of his restoration ambition, declared simply that California would strive to

double the number of salmon produced in the state’s waters over the early 1980s levels.

Soon after, the California Legislature commissioned a panel of fishery experts (the

California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout) to draw up a

statewide salmon conservation program which recommended the adoption of the

Resource Secretary’s “doubling” goal. The Legislature subsequently adopted the

same goal, emphasizing the need to restore watershed health and natural, as opposed

to hatchery salmon production, as State policy? The story does not end there.

As Congress deliberated proposals in 1992 to reform and make more “fish friendly”

the operations of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), a sprawling system of

dams, reservoirs and canals that diverts water from the Klamath-Trinity, Sacramento

and San Joaquin rivers and delivers it to farms and towns along the coast as well as

in the Central Valley, it asked: “Shouldn’t federal actions effecting environmental

resources in California conform to the same objectives as those set by the State?” The

answer is now firmly lodged in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992

where Congress directs the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement

“a program which makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that, by the year 2002, natural

production of anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and streams will be sustainable, on a long-term basis, at levels not less than twice the average levels attained

during the period of 1967-1991.“”

There is substantial debate, of course, over whether the

CVPIA salmon doubling goal is practical or affordable.

Its attainment will require a substantial reallocation

of water, and water, as we have observed, is

one of California’s most contentious

resources. But the goal, just as in the case

of the Clean Water Act, remains.

The California Department of Fish and

Game cites the Legislature’s salmon

doubling mandate when it comments on projects that would harm salmon streams or

when it proposes programs to improve them. The salmon doubling goal has been

adopted for federal fish restoration programs in the Klamath River Basin. It may not

be a perfect goal; it may have to be adjusted for local conditions. There are certainly

streams where more than a doubling could be accomplished, and there are goodquality streams where doubling may be neither possible nor desirable. If those

3 California Fish & Game Code, 0 6900 et seq.

4 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) 6 3406[b] [ 11.

2-2 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Documenting the problems in your watershed

responsible for shaping a restoration program in a particular watershed have

information that suggests a greater or lesser goal should be adopted there, then some

accommodation should be made. To make restoration contingent upon the establishment

of a technically based goal, alone, may, as Dr. Zedler’s comments suggest, frustrate

the effort.

Inasmuch as watershed restoration inevitably involves the reallocation of resources,

program goals must be politically popular whether or not they are technically correct.

One important way to address the political aspects of watershed planning is to get the

interests, especially private landowners, together to define the watershed values and

goals for the restoration efforts. This process is known as “community-” or “interestbased” planning. The process is most effective when conducted by an experienced,

impartial facilitator whose role is to help the community find consensus on watershed

problems and restoration goals. In watersheds where there is a high level of mistrust

between the interests or where one or more interests have pursued legal action against

another, mediation may be the best course for resolving these issues and moving

restoration goals ahead. If it appears that the goals of the watershed planning process

will be rife with controversy, or the interests have strong conflicts, then expert

mediation is a sound investment for the planning process. The Center for Resolution

of Environmental Disputes specializes in solving seemingly intractable environmental

issues all over the state and can help turn conflict into common ground.

Contact: Elizabeth Watson, PhD., Acting Director,

Center for Resolution of Environmental Disputes Ii8

Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521-8299.

Telephone: 707/826-5421 l 826-4750 l FAX 707/826-5450.

e-mail: WATSON@AXE.HUMBOLDT.EDU

B. DOCUMENTING THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR WATERSHED

Once you have identified the “benefits” you want restored to your watershed -

drinkable water, fishing, swimming, stabilized soils, or whatever your community

agrees it needs and deserves from its watershed - you are ready to document the

factors that prevent or limit those services now. The path to documenting these

“limiting factors” is not always a smooth one. There are usually diverse, often

passionate views in the community as to why, for example, the fish in the local stream

have all but disappeared: too much fishing, too little water, too much silt, not enough

shade. If your livelihood depends on fishing, overfishing is not the limiting factor you

would likely identify first. If you are ranching along the stream or harvesting timber

there, you might be slow to agree that removal of vegetation from the streambanks is

the culprit. Until the links between the limiting factors and the loss of watershed

services can be fairly well demonstrated, it will be impossible to get agreement on the

actions needed to achieve your restoration goals. This is why gathering, organizing,

and publicly reviewing information are essential steps in watershed restoration

planning.

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 4 2-3
South Fork Trinity River Watershed

In order to document watershed problems, one needs good information. It is often the

case that statistically reliable data does not exist. In these instances, a combination of

existing data and the judgment of scientists and experts can be used to determine the

factors that impair watershed resources. The South Fork of the Trinity River

demonstrates how a combination of data from government agencies, scientists and

local interests have pooled resources and expertise to define problems and identify

restoration solutions.

South Fork Trinity River watershed

A good example of a successful watershed restoration plan involving private land, one

that carefully links limiting factor information to recommendations for curing those

problems is the Action Plan for Restoration of the South Fork Trinity River

Watershed and its Fisheries5 funded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Trinity

River Restoration Program for the South Fork Trinity Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) group and others in 1994. This 1,000 square-mile

Klamath-Trinity river tributary watershed in northwestern California supports small

communities, like Hayfork, with limited sewage treatment, pasture irrigation, range

livestock grazing and timber harvesting activities on both private and National Forest

lands. Many of this sub-basin’s streams have been literally buried in sediment

unleashed from steep, erodible slopes in this high-rainfall country. The plan describes

Hayfork Creek as having “dark sludge on the banks and foam floating on the water”

in summer with “dead fish including steelhead observed.” This is not an image that the

hardworking residents of Hayfork would have liked to presented, but it reflects the

observed conditions in their watershed.

The primary goal of the South Fork Trinity Plan is to restore the steelhead fishery.

Therefore, when preparing the plan, the CRMP planners focused their data collection

efforts on information related to those factors that were limiting fish survival and

reproduction. The CRMP gathered information from a long list of public and private

sources:

California Department of Fish and Game - Data on fish populations, habitat and

fishing pressure surveys, that documented declines in fish production.

California Department of Water Resources - Geological data and maps showing

high erosion risk and mass wasting (landslide) areas, that may be factors contributing

to fisheries decline.

State Water Resources Control Board - Water diversion and water pollution

information from STORET and other databases, showing that water quantity and

quality may be limiting factors to fish survival.

5 Action Plan for Restoration of the South Fork Trinity River Watershed and its Fisheries. 1993.

Prepared by Pacific Watershed Associates for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Trinity River

Restoration Program.

2-4 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Finding Watershed Expertise

U.S. Forest Service - Watershed assessment and fish habitat typing data for federal

lands within the watershed.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - Streamflow data from the WATSTOR database.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) - Salmon population estimates and forecasts.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) -- Identified restoration actions and

management options.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - Soil typing maps,

watershed inventory data, sediment yield estimates, needed to identify areas with

potential to contribute sediment to the river.

Tsnungwe Tribal Council - Descriptions of the Native American rights to the

fisheries resources.

The weekly Trinity Journal -Historic fish and fishing articles documenting historic

decline in fish populations.

Private scientist consultants- evaluations of erosion problems, suggested treatments

for private lands.

And many, many other sources.

The Plan divided the South Fork Trinity River watershed into its tributary stream subbasins. Existing information about soil, water, fish, geological and management

conditions for each basin was compiled. Draft findings concerning the factors limiting

fish production in each sub-basin were reviewed and discussed by the CRMP, which

includes representatives of the watershed’s landowners. A solid indication of the

community’s Plan “buy-in’ is the 1995 commitment of one of the region’s largest

industrial forest landowners to cost-participate in sediment control and related

measures in some of the South Fork’s target restoration reaches. As with pudding, the

proof of restoration planning is in the implementation of the plan and the South Fork

Trinity community has demonstrated a hearty appetite for watershed restoration.

6$/7‘..’ Finding Watershed Expertise _.. . Local, state and federal agencies can be a valuable source for watershed

information and expertise (see discussion of agency roles in Chapter 3).

There are also many state and local institutions that conduct studies and maintain staff

scientists that can be helpfulin watershed planning. The following list of better known

institutions involved in watershed planning and protection is not exhaustive, but

provides a starting point for locating scientists involved in, and information about

watershed planning in California.

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) has two reserve sites

administered by NOAA and the State of California which are dedicated to the study

of estuarine ecology and processes. At these reserve sites research and education

projects are stressed with the goal of providing information that would be useful for

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 4 2-5
Finding Watershed Expertise

coastal managers throughout the State. The Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine

Research Reserve is located at Moss Landing north of Monterey Bay. The Elkhom

Reserve is managed by the California Department of Fish and Game and is involved

in a wide array of research projects including habitat restoration, innovative agroecology

for strawberry farming, bird studies, and management plan development. Teacher

training and curricula, and outreach programs are available to the public.

Contact: Becky Christensen, Education Coordinator

Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve

1700 Elkhorn Road, Watsonville, CA 95076 l 408/728-0560.

The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve is located immediately

north of the U.S. - Mexico border in southern San Diego County and contains some

of the few remaining examples of relatively undisturbed, tidally flushed coastal

wetlands in southern California. California’s Department of Parks and Recreation

manages the reserve which is also the site of the Pacific Estuarine Research

Laboratory run by San Diego State University. The reserve serves as a center for

wetland restoration research and compares the value of constructed marshes versus

natural marshlands to identify improved restoration methods.

Contact: Gail Sevrens, Education Coordinator

Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve

301 Caspian Way

Imperial Beach, CA 92032 + 619/ 575-3613.

The Institute for River Ecosystems (IRE) is dedicated to the preservation of river

ecosystems and to the improvement of river management through research and

education. The IRE has a pool of experts, Humboldt State University (HSU) faculty

and graduate students, who specialize in research related to river management.

Current projects include: a basinwide study of the anadromous salmonid population

of the Smith River; evaluating potential impacts to juvenile salmonid of a summer dam

on the Eel River; quantifying downstream effects of hydroelectric dams; developing

management strategies for gravel extraction from rivers; and riparian ecosystem

dynamics.

w Contact:

Dr. William Trush, Director

Institute for River Ecosystems

Schmidt House #90, Fisheries Department, Humboldt State

University, Arcata, CA 95521 l 707/ 826-3561.

The California Water Resources Center (CWRC) conducts research and investigates

water-related issues in California. The Center, associated with the University of

California (UC) system, collects and publishes the results of much of the water-related

research conducted by UC faculty. The Center maintains the Water Resources

Center Archives, a special collection of published and archival materials covering

2-6 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
n

water-related literature of California and the West from the 1890s to the present. The

Archives can be accessed through the On-line Computer Library Center (OCLC) and

through the on-line University catalog system (MELVYL). WRC publishes extensive

water resources literature and the Directory of Water Resources Expertise6 which

lists water resource faculty and staff scientists throughout the UC system. This is an

excellent source for finding scientists that may be available to assist in watershed

studies.

The Archives are located at: Water Resources Center Archives, 410 O’Brien Hall,

University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. 510/ 642-2666.

For a list of WRC publications or a copy of the Directory, write or call:

Henry J. Vaux, Jr., Office of the Director

Water Resources Center, Rubidoix Hall,

University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.

909/ 787-4327 /FAX 909/ 787-5295.

The Wildland Resources Center (WRC), also associated with the UC system,

conducts research aimed at solving scientific and practical problems concerned with

managing and conserving wildland resources. One purpose of the WRC is to provide

a statewide network of specialists and county advisors that can convey information to

people interested in the utilization, wise management andconsetvationof California’s

natural resources. The WRC has developed a directory that lists wildland resources

experts, their specialties andinterests arranged by keywords. The Wildland Expertise

and Facilities in the University of California System7 contains a wealth of information

about the types of research available and where to find the experts.

To find out more or to obtain a copy of the Directory contact:

Wildland Resources Center

Don Erman, Director

145 Mulford Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

510/642-0263 FAX 510/642-5067

There are many other institutions that are valuable information sources. Natural

History Museums can provide a wealth of information and expertise. Some of these

institutions specialize in documenting the local ecology and may have priceless

information in their archives. Some of the larger institutions that can provide such

information include:

6 Directory of Water Resources Expertise in California. January 1993. California Water Resources

Center, University of California, Riverside, CA.

7 Wildland Expertise and Facilities in the University of California System. May 1993. Wildland

Resources Center, University of California, Berkeley CA.

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 2-7
Finding Watershed Expertise

California Academy of Sciences

Golden Gate Park

San Francisco, CA 94118

Contact: Dr. John McCosker + 415/ 750-7249

Santa Barbara Museum of Systematics and Ecology

Department of Biological Sciences

UC Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Contact: Assistant Director Mark Holmgren l 805/ 893-4098

Southern California Academy of Sciences

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

900 Exposition Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90007 l 213/ 744-3384

Camm Swift

Loyola Marymount University

Department of Biology

Loyola Boulevard at West 80th Street

Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699. 31 0/338-5386 l FAX 31 0/ 338-4479

cswift@lmumaiI.lmu.edu

Joy B. Zedler

Professor of Biology

Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory

San Diego State University

San Diego, California

Because watershed management encompasses a number of specialized disciplines

such as geology, hydrology ,and fisheries science, some forward-thinking professionals

decided that there needed to be an interdisciplinary organization devoted to the field

of rivers and watershed management. The Watershed Management Council (WMC)

was formed in the late 1980s to “advance the Art and Science of Watershed

Management.” The organization is made up of scientists, professionals from a wide

range of disciplines, students, teachers and individuals interested in promoting proper

watershed management. WMC provides a forum for disseminating watershed

information, and a network of people interested in watershed management. WMC has

compiled research, studies, policy information, and sources of expertise in the

watershed field. The organization publishes a quarterly newsletter and places

informationon EPA’s Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board System (NPSBBS)

(see below). WMC has recently set up an Internet address at “watershed.org” to allow

on-line access to their publications.

2-8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Finding Existing and Using Data

For membership or newsletter information, contact:

The Watershed Management Council

c/o Water Resources Center

UC Davis, CA 95616

or Clay Brandow, via e-mail at: clay-brandow@fire.ca.gov

The newsletter editor is Mike Fumiss

c/o Interagency Watershed Center

4886 Cottage Grove Ave.

Mckinleyville, CA 955 19 + 707/839-6277

e-mail: furniss@watershed.org

Finding Existing Information and Using Data

One way to begin documenting changes in your watershed to find as much

historical data as possible and compare it with existing data. For example,

changes in river, marsh or estuary configuration can be documented

through comparisons of old maps with current maps or aerial photographs. Old maps

can be found in libraries, universities and at local historical museums and historical

society files. City and county offices often have plat maps dating back to the first

settlements in the community. These maps can show the prior placement of streams

and creeks that have been channelized, culverted or diverted. National, State or

regional parks may also have historic records and maps that can provide information

about the watershed.

Comparisons of aerial photographs taken over the years can provide information on

land use and other changes in the watershed. Historical photo sequences from earliest

to most recent can provide valuable clues to natural or human-related land disturbances,

and changes in land uses and vegetation. The local Resource Conservation District

often has sets of aerial photos for the local area. One of the best contacts for finding

aerial photographs is the Earth Science Information Center (ESIC), operated by the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). ESIC’s Aerial Photography Summary Record

System identifies over 130 California sources of aerial photographs, both public and

private, that can be obtained through their services.

Contact: ESIC, Building 3, MS 532, 345 Middlefield Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025 + 415/ 329-4309

Including a chapter on the history of the watershed, both the natural history and that

of the human community, is a safe way to begin to get buy-in into the plan. Almost

everyone can agree on the history of their community. As the community learns to

agree on the history of their watershed, it can begin to work together on defining future

goals. One way to encourage participation is to interview long-time residents and

members of historical societies. These interviews can provide especially valuable

insights into the fisheries and other resources in the watershed and to document

changes that have occurred over time.

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 4 2-9
Finding Existing and Using Data

Look for unpublished surveys and studies that may have been conducted by college

students or agency staff. Many colleges and universities keep copies of undergraduate

theses and studies in their libraries. Fish and Game staff may have conducted small

studies that have not been formally published that can be useful for documenting past

fish and wildlife populations. The California Department of Transportation (Cal

Trans) may have cross-sections and river channel surveys conducted as part of bridge

or road building projects, that can be useful to document changes in the river channel

or profile.

Do not overlook what seem like obscure sources. When developing the Garcia Plan,

we checked the records at the old Point Arena lighthouse, a local historic museum.

Although the U.S. Coast Guard had closed the lighthouse some thirty years ago, we

found a survey map of the coast from 1870 along with rainfall records from 1902 to

1941. The information proved extremely valuable in showing estuary conditions

before extensive resource depletion. A fish-finder map for tourists from the 195Os,

published by the City of Point Arena and found in the University of California’s map

library in Berkeley, was crucial in identifying location of historic fish habitat on the

river.

Exploring Watershed Information Via the Internet

More and more information is being made available electronically over the Internet.

The Internet offers opportunities to contact scientists, explore the wide array of

research available and network with other watershed groups and projects. Forums and

new information “nodes” are springing up everyday, but there are a number warrant

mention and that can be extremely useful for data gathering efforts:

EPA’s Nonpoint Source Bulletin Board (NPS BBS) provides nonpoint source

pollution-related information, a forum for discussion and information exchange. The

BBS features Specific Issues Groups (SIGs) that are dedicated to topics such as

Watershed Restoration, Volunteer Monitoring, and Coastal NPS Control. The BBS

also contains all of the issues of EPA’s Nonpoint Source News-Notes a bulletin which

is published several times annually. The bulletin contains articles from around the

nation concerning the control of nonpoint source pollution and the ecological

management and restoration of watersheds.

To subscribe to the newsletter contact:

NPS News-Notes, c/o Terrene Institute

IILEE3 1717 K Street, NW, Suite 801

Washington, DC 20006 l 202/260-1517

2-l 0 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Exploring Watershed Information Via the Internet

To access the NPS BBS:

You will need a PC, a modem, and telecommunications software. The phone number

is 301/ 5 89-0205. The telecommunication parameters are: No parity, 8 bits, 1 stopbit (N-8-l). You can also access the NPS BBS over the Internet by typing TELNET

FEDWORLD.GOV. Once on Fed World, turn ANSII graphics off and gothroughthe

Gateway to NPS-BBS, or command D 79. The information has recently been added

to the World Wide Web at:

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsie.html IL!

Recently, an e-mail discussion group called NPSINFO was opened. If you have an email account you can access NPSINFO. To subscribe, end a message to

“listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov” and include in the message:

subscribe NPSINFO yourfirstname yourlastname

After you have subscribed you can post and receive messages via this address:

npsinfor@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov

The National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program has

developed the California Rivers Assessment which contains information on over half

the river segments in the state. The assessment has conducted a survey and gathered

the best professional judgments from experts regarding the condition of riparian and

aquatic resources of California’s rivers. The Park Service has established criteria and

performed analyses to rank river segments according to their ecological integrity

based on riparian condition, flow regime, and native species populations. Assessment

information is available on-line, where users can browse or download survey forms,

basin maps, water quality data, vegetation data, and NDDB information.

For more information about the California Rivers Assessment contact:

Linda Stonier, National Park Service

600 Harrison St., Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94107. 415/ 744-3975 l FAX 415/ 744-3932.

The Rivers Assessment is accessible via the Internet at:

http://ice.ucdavis.edu/CA-RIVERS-assessment/

There are many existing projects throughout the state that can provide valuable

insights for new groups that want to undertake new watershed projects. Recognizing

the importance of such information exchange, the California Executive Council on

Biodiversity, several federal and state agencies, and the University of California have

joined together to create the California Watershed Project Inventory (CWPI). The

CWPI contains information on some 200 watershed projects statewide. Most projects

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS b 2-11
Exploring Watershed Information Via the Internet

have been mapped by bio-region and hydrologic unit. Project information includes the

contact person, funding sources, problems and successes, and monitoring or other

data collected by the project. Project types vary from those aimed at water quality or

wildlife protection to riparian enhancement and forest restoration. One of the main

goals of the Inventory is to provide an avenue for watershed groups to network and

learn from the each other’s project experiences. Inventory information is available via

the Internet and users can review the survey and download maps and reports

associated with each project entry.

I For more about the California Watershed Project Inventory contact:

I?3 Anitra Pawley, Division of Environmental Studies

UC Davis, Davis, CA 95616. 916/ 752-9381 l FAX 916/ 752-3350

e-mail: alpawley@ucdavis.edu

The Internet, World Wide Web access for the Inventory:

http://ice.ucdavis.edu/CA-WATERSHED-Projects-Inventory/

The Internet is changing the way that information is disseminated and used. There is

such an immense amount of knowledge available through computers that finding

pertinent information can be bewildering. We’ve listed those Internet addresses that

are specific to watershed management, but there are certainly other sites that may

containinformation that would be helpful for a watershed project. The best part about

the Internet is that you can explore a topic fully without ever leaving your desk. For

those interested in delving more deeply into water resource issues, the following Web

sites may prove to be useful:

I[ Water:

EE3

American Water Works Association:

http://www.waterweb.com/

http://www.awwa.org

Environmental Organizations directory: http://www.webdirectory.com

FWS Coastal Ecosystems Info: http://www.fws.gov/-cep/cepcode.html

National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nas.edu/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

http://www.noaa.gov/

NOAA Coastal Ocean Program: http://hpcc.noaa.gov/cop/cop-home.html

2-l 2 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Using Data Effectively

To use data effectively and persuasively, the community must understand the

reasons for collecting specific types of information and the methodology used to

gather it. These reasons and methods should be explained in the plan, in a simple and

straightforward manner understandable to the non-scientific lay person. This is a

crucial part of the education and public awareness process. If the community

understands the technical information and how it is used to reach community goals,

then trust is established along with increased participation. For instance, if the general

goals are to identify historic and existing conditions, and problems on the river, then

observations of its physical characteristics must be made. A chapter that explains the

reasons for collecting certain types of data and the methods used should be a

centerpiece of your watershed plan.

Explaining Watershed Data

The following provides an example of an approach for conveying the

reasons and methods to help community understanding of datagathering

efforts for such goals:

(Reason)

The study of rivers is called HYDROLOGY. It involves studying channel

forms, the movement of water through the system of channels, and the

effects of the water’s energy. CHANNEL FORM, or MORPHOLOGY, is an

important factor. The shape of river channels often change over the

course of the years due to floods and high flows. Observing changes in

the form of the channel provides an understanding of CHANNEL STABILITY

which can depend on many factors, such as increased erosion caused by

land use (roads, timber harvesting, grazing, etc.), landslides, or stream

bank failure. Information about channel form and stability can be

obtained by looking at historical information, especially aerial photographs, and by making CROSS SECTIONS AND LONGITUDINAL PROFILES of the

river.

(Method)

A CROSS SECTION is a diagram of the river’s shape taken at right angles to

the direction of flow of the river, creating a picture of the bank and river

bottom features. A cross section is made by first staking the point on the

left bank of the river and then stretching a tape to the right bank, which

has also been staked. Depth measurements along the bottom are made by

reading the tape level next to the horizontal tape connecting the stakes,

or by using more sophisticated surveying equipment which speeds up this

process. Cross sections provide information about channel hydrology

and fish habitat. Cross sections taken over time are a valuable tool for

understanding a river and detecting specific changes in pool depth,

channel stability, and form.

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 4 2-13
C. INFORMATION STRENGTHENS THE PUBLIC'S

COMMITMENT To RESTORE KLAMATH RIVER FISH

The Klamath River is California’s second largest river and by far the biggest of its

coastal streams. Only the Sacramento, which drains much of the state’s Central

Valley, produces more water - and salmon. The Klamath’s salmon are considered

to be in a precarious condition.

Following a period of poor ocean feeding conditions, the number of king salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawystscha) returning to the Klamath to spawn dropped to 30,000

fish in 1984, less than half the number of prior years. Concerned by these plummeting

numbers, the region’s commercial salmon trollers, anglers and Indian salmon fishers

(the Klamath supports California’s only recognized tribal river fishery) sought federal

help in restoring the river’s salmon. In 1986 Congress adopted the Klamath River

Basin Act, authorizing a million dollars a year for 20 years

to restore the river’s fish resources.

The Klamath Act states that the decline of the Klamath’s

salmon resource can be explained in part by “floods, the

construction and operation of dams, diversions and

hydroelectric projects, past mining, timber harvest practices,

and toad building [that] have all contributed to sedimentation,

reduced flows, and degraded water quality which has

significantly reduced the anadromous fish habitat in the

Klamath-Trinity River System.“8 The Act created a 14-

member Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force

representing federal, state and county governments, Indian

tribes, commercial fishermen and anglers. The Task Force’s

role is to advise the U.S. Secretary of the Interior on

precisely how the Restoration Program should address the

problems identified in the Act.

Information needed for planning and monitoring

Organized in late 1987, the Klamath Task Force began a thorough assessment of fish

habitat conditions in the 10 million-acre watershed as the basis for a plan to guide the

20-year Restoration Program. The Task Force completed its Long Range Plan for

the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program in

1991.9 The plan identifies the factors, most of them involving nonpoint sources of

8 The Klamath River Basin Act. Public Law 99-552.

9 Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. January 1991. Long Range Plan for the Klamath River

Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program. Prepared by William M. Kier Associates.

2-l 4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Information needed for planning and monitoring

water pollution, which limit salmon growth and survival in the mainstem Klamath and

the river’s principal tributaries. The plan is both a fish restoration plan and a water

quality restoration plan. In the Klamath, these two goals are inseparable.

The Task Force’s plan draws its facts from hundreds of published reports, administrative

memos and single-purpose databases created by agencies and individuals throughout

the region. Concerned by the effort required to locate and evaluate all this information,

the plan called for a comprehensive, computer-aided system to assure the continued,

timely capture and maintenance of fishery and water quality information to support

the Klamath program. The system would enable the evaluation of the Restoration

Program, itself, as well as the sharing of information quickly and reliably among all

parties interested in the Program.

“KRIS” (for Klamath Resource Information System, see sidebar) was launched in

1992 with a grant of federal Clean Water Act funds to the Task Force for its

development. KRIS now covers more than half the Basin’s watershed area. As it is

used by Restoration Program participants and observers, the system is assuming an

important, largely unanticipated role in guiding restoration decisions.

Since the earliest declines of these important fish, Klamath basin interests have been

unclear, or downright uninformed as to the reasons. For many of those who mine,

ranch or cut timber far from the coast, the answer has been overfishing on the ocean

and lower river. For those who make their living harvesting salmon the problem

involves land use and water diversions in the upstream spawning and nursery areas.

With this divergence of opinion it has been naturally difficult for the concerned parties

to agree on how to restore salmon to the Klamath.

KRIS’ development reflects the Long Range Plan’s findings about water quality

conditions and how they limit fish production - what fish scientists call “limiting

factors.” For example, the plan describes how water diversions, the loss of shade from

streambanks and the reduction in pool volume by sediment drive Shasta River

temperatures up and dissolved oxygen levels down frustrating the growth and survival

of juvenile salmon in this key spawning tributary. KRIS’ Shasta River data elements

thus provide graphic summaries of flow, temperature and dissolved oxygenconditions,

making the precise nature of the Shasta’s conditionunderstandable to all. At the same

time, those with fishing impact concerns can review KRIS’ fishing data to inquire

whether over-harvesting could explain the Shasta’s diminished salmon spawner

returns.

Information can hasten consensus

KRIS is used by Klamath Restoration Program managers to maintain information for

monitoring, evaluating and strengthening the Program’s performance. That is the

primary use envisioned for KRIS in the Task Force’s long range plan. Meanwhile, a

second subtle, but important use of KRIS has emerged. By quantifying and mapping

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 2-15
Information can hasten consensus

the nature and extent of the watershed’s water quality and habitat problems KRIS

strengthens community understanding of these fish-limiting factors and fosters

consensus on what do about them.

In large watersheds computer-supported infonnation systems like KRIS can help

people comprehend the “big picture” more quickly than traditional reports. That

comprehension then paves the way for agreement on what needs to be done and the

cooperation needed for doing it. That has been the experience of the Klamath River

Basin Fisheries Task Force as KRIS’ information steadily builds community support

for the Klamath Fisheries Restoration Program.

WHAT IS KRIS?

KRIS

The Klamath Resource Information System-“KRIS”

- is an interactive computer database that contains a

collection of information concerning fish, fish habitat

and water quality conditions in the Klamath River

basin. KRIS is also an assembly of computer software

tools for locating, using and updating the information

collection - for “managing” the data. And, it is a

collection of Klamath River basin maps - or, more

precisely, computer-processed map “coverages,” that

includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

River Reach File. Because KRIS’ information

collection (databases) is tied to map locations, KRIS

is also a Geographic Information System, or “GIS.”

KRIS can be operated on a personal computer. KRIS

is user friendly. Copies of KRIS are being distributed

to Klamath River basin communities.

KRIS contains information about:

4 Klamath River fish populations, habitat and harvest:

4 Klamath River water quality and quantity, including USGS

streamflow gaging records, stream temperatures, dissolved oxygen,

sediment deposition, and riparian (streambank) vegetation

conditions.

4 Klamath Basin geographic map layers, photographs and remote

sensing data.

& KRIS can be used by resource management agencies, tribes,

landowners and community groups that participate in, or wish to

monitor the progress of the Klamath Basin Fisheries Restoration

Program.

For more information about KRIS contact: Patrick Higgins, William

M. Kier Associates l 707/ 822-9428

2-16 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
D. FILLING DATA GAPS: CITIZEN’S MONITORING

The concept underlying KRIS is that data should be managed in a manner that allows

the local community to both use the information and add to it. The KRIS experience

has taught us that when information about a watershed is collected and properly

organized, probably the first thing that will be apparent is the need for additional data

with which to answer specific questions. Once your group has gathered all the existing

data, you may find there is not enough information to document, with any certainty,

the cause of problems in your watershed. Lack of data and uncertainty about specific

causative factors are conditions that are common to watershed planning. Where there

is not enough information to make informed decisions about a resource or its limiting

factors, there is a “data gap.” Filling data gaps is key to decision-making and

approaches for improving the data picture should be addressed in the watershed plan.

Collection of long-term trend data on factors such as stream flow volumes, water

quality, fish and wildlife habitat characterization and population information is key

to determining the conditions and trends in a watershed.‘” Unfortunately, most

watersheds and their associated rivers and streams lack basic or “baseline” data on the

conditions of the resources, and ongoing trend data has became less available as

government budgets for monitoring have declined.

Citizens have stepped in to fill this need. More and more we find agencies recognizing

that, with proper training, local community groups can be relied upon to inventory

resources and perform monitoring in their watersheds. In some instances local groups

are forming partnerships with agencies to conduct ongoing, systematic monitoring of

streams and riparian resources. These partnerships promise to reverse the problem of

“data gaps.”

Coyote Creek Riparian Station

One of the pioneers and tireless promoters of citizens’

monitoring techniques is Michael Rigney of the Coyote

Creek Riparian Station. The Coyote Creek Riparian

Station, a nonprofit membership organization is located

adjacent to Coyote Creek at the southernmost reach of

San Francisco Bay. Begun in 1982 as a field station for

10 For an excellent discussion of monitoring approaches see MacDonald, L. et al. 1991. Monitoring

Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.

U.S. EPA, Region 10. 166 pages. Publication # EPA/910/9-91-001.

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 4 2-17
Filling Data Gaps: Citizen’s Monitoring

the study of migratory birds, it has expanded its focus to include habitat, riparian and

water quality inventories of all the streams that empty into the southern end of San

Francisco Bay. The Station’s Community Creek Watch Stream Inventory Projectnow

coordinates the efforts of hundreds of volunteers who collect data on these bayside

streams. The Project sponsors a StreamKeeper Program that trains volunteers to

identify, report to the appropriate authorities, and follow-up on illegal dumping and

polluting in the creeks near their homes. Through volunteer monitoring the Coyote

Creek Riparian Station has been able to provide valuable assistance to local agencies

while developing community awareness of watershed issues and problems.

Rigney and his dedicated staff began their Stream Inventory Program by asking local

agencies such as the Santa Clara Valley Water District (the water delivery and flood

control agency for Santa Clara County) if they had, or needed a program to

systematically collect data on riparian habitat conditions to assist the agency in

planning, flood control and ground water recharge projects. The District agreed that

this was needed, but there was no in-house program to do so and that to hire consultants

to collect the information would be too costly. The Station then proposed that trained

volunteers might be able to collect the needed baseline habitat data at a considerable

cost savings to the agencies?

The agencies initially had concerns about the reliability of the information and fear of

overzealous volunteers, whose enthusiasm might, in the minds of the agencies, cause

public relations and logistical problems for regular staff. To allay these concerns, the

Station researched standard and widely acceptedmethods for wildlife habitat surveying

and water quality monitoring. With grant funding from EPA, the Santa Clara Valley

Water District and foundations, the Station adapted these methods to suit the training

needs of volunteers and developed standard methods known as field “protocols” for

their monitoring program. The protocols included those monitoring and inventorying

techniques that were reliable, inexpensive, capable of being used by modestly trained

volunteers, and able to produce data comparable with assessments conducted by

private concerns or agencies. In developing its citizen monitoring program techniques

the Station coordinated its efforts with EPA, the Department of Fish and Game and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The monitoring program quality assurance plan

was certified by the U.S. EPA in 1993, and citizens’ monitoring began in earnest.

The Station’s Community Creek Watch Stream Inventory volunteers now conduct

monitoring at creek sites located throughout Santa Clara County. Information on

water quality, birds, streamside plants, fisheries, amphibians and reptiles is collected

at sites along these streams. Besides local community members, the program draws

upon the experience of focused interest groups such as the local Audubon Society

11 Santa Clara County Citizens’ MonitoringlStream Inventory Project: Protocols and Procedures.

1994. Coyote Creek Riparian Station.

2-18 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
chapters, native plant societies and fishing groups to provide volunteers skilled in bird

and plant identification and fish habitat characteristics. Summaries of the collected

data are published in the Station’s quarterly RipariaNews. The project is the first of

its kind in California. Its success has led to the Station to expand its efforts toward

assisting other citizens’ groups to initiate monitoring efforts by providing training

materials and sampling equipment.

Michael Rigney and Station staff are currently collaborating with the San Francisco

Estuary Institute to develop a Guide for Starting a Citizens’ Monitoring Group. The

effort is funded by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Guide is expected

to be available in 1996. To find out more about the upcoming Guide, contact Gwen

Starrett, the SWRCB Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator at 916/ 657-0518.

If your group is interested in starting your own citizens’ monitoring effort and

would like information about the Community Creek Watch Program, contact:

Coyote Creek Riparian Station

P.O. Box 1027

Alviso, CA 95002 l 408/ 262-9204.

Resources

The Coyote Creek Riparian Station offers several publications available for

public purchase (cost varies for nonprofit versus private purchasers):

4 Santa Clara County Citizens’ Monitoring and Stream Inventory Project:

Protocols and Procedures.

& StreamKeeper’s Guide to Pollution Prevention: A Manual for Protecting

Creeks, Storm Drains and the Bay.

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS 4 2-19
4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
3 4 Took for Finding Solutions to

Problems

A. REGULATORY AGENCIES AND MECHANISMS

The Federal Clean Water Act and the

Environmental Protection Agency

The federal Clean Water Act, enacted in 1972, is administered by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA generally implements federal law,

including provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), through the states using what

is known as the “state - federal partnership.” This means that EPA ‘delegates’ its

authority to implement water quality controls to the state and local agencies while

EPA takes the responsibility of ensuring that the states fulfill their commitment to

implement the law. In other words, EPA is primarily organized to work with its state

counterparts and has only recently involved itself directly in local watershed issues.

Probably the largest obstacle for EPA is that nonpoint source pollution and watershed

restoration are local problems and the agency’s role, other than administering grants

through the state, is largely removed from local efforts. Nevertheless, EPA and the

CWA provide tools and funding opportunities to assist local groups in watershed

restoration.

Background on Watersheds and Nonpoint Source Pollution

Early on, EPA recognized that water pollution results not only from end-of-pipe

“point source” discharges from cities and factories but also from human activities

such as agriculture, forest management, construction and other land-uses. Adverse

water quality impacts resulting from crop production, timber harvesting and other

landuse activities are called nonpoint source pollution. Because rivers and streams

generally flow toward the ocean, accumulating both flow and pollutants, nonpoint

source problems impact coastal resources disproportionately. In California nonpoint

source pollution is considered the state’s most significant source of water pollution,

impairing estuaries, bays, and near shore waters.1

In the late 1970s as it became clear that even incremental improvements in water

quality from point source controls could only be obtained at higher and higher costs,

Federal efforts gradually turned to the widespread problem of nonpoint source

pollution and, hence, to watersheds. Understanding provisions of the CWA will

enable watershed groups to use them as tools for characterizing watershed problems

and obtaining funding for planning and implementing watershed restoration.

’ California’s Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future (draft). July 1995. The Resources Agency.
Regulatory Agencies and Mechanisms

The Clean Water Act Section 208 Program - Water

Quality Planning

In 1977, Congress added section 208 to the Clean Water Act. This provision charged

EPA and state water quality agencies with developing water quality control plans

that would identify nonpoint source related pollution. These plans “set forth procedures

and methods to control to the extent feasible such sources"2 The plans relied upon the

use of “Best Management Practices or “BMPs” (see below) as measures to control

nonpoint source pollution. Several “208 Plans” were developed for various parts of

the state by regional authorities. For example, the Association of Bay Area Govemments

(ABAG); the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG); the San

Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Southern California

Association of Governments or SCAG, all have developed areawide water quality

control plans. Although most of these plans were published in the late 1970s where

a plan exists, it can be a good starting point for identifying problems in your watershed.

The 1987 Federal Nonpoint Source Management Program

By 1987, Congress realized that the purely planning-based approach of Section 208

was not working adequately to control nonpoint pollution. It became clear from

nationwide reporting that the remaining water quality pollution problems resulted

predominately from nonpoint sources. In fact, it was observed that water quality gains

made through point source controls in the 1970s were actually losing ground to

widespread nonpoint source problems arising from urban runoff, agriculture and

other diffuse discharges.3

In response, Congress added section 319 to the Act. Section 319, the Nonpoint Source

Management Program, directed EPA and each State to develop Assessment Reports

and Management Programs describing the states’ nonpoint source problems and

setting out a program to control nonpoint source pollution impacts.4 In California, the

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality

Control Boards administer the program and are responsible for the California

Nonpoint Source Management Plan5

The federal section 319 program is incentive based, meaning it provides funding to

assist the state in the implementation of its Management Program (see discussion of

grant funding sources, Appendix B). The elements of the nonpoint source program

include:

3-2 &

2 Section 208 of the Clean Water Act as Amended, 1977. (33 U.S.C. 1288).

3 Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution Impacts on Water Quality. 1984. U.S. EPA.

4 Section 319 of the Clean Water Act as Amended by the Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987,

March 1988. (33 U.S.C. 1329).

5 Nonpoint Source Management Plan. November 1988. California State Water Resources Control

Board.

WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
l Identification and assessment of water quality problems on a watershed-bywatershed basis.

l Development of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent the problems

identified, and programs for implementing such BMPs.

l Institutional arrangements to promote (voluntary program), encourage (incentivebased program), or require (regulatory program) the implementation of BMPs.

The federal nonpoint law contained in section 319 was based on the assumption that

the necessary planning had been completed under the section 208 program. While this

assumption was true for a few states, it was not the case for most. California is a big

state; while much effort had been put into the development of Basin Plans and

Areawide Waste Management Plans such as those of the Regional Planning Agencies

mentioned above, there are relatively few watershed plans that identify nonpoint

source impacts or programs to abate them. It is important that local communities

organize to assess and develop plans to protect and restore their watersheds because

it is clear that the federal and state water authorities have too big a job to do so without

public involvement.

NOAA and the Coastal Zone Management Act

The most recent legislative development that affects coastal watersheds is the federal

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). Through these

amendments, mentioned above, Congress added section 6217 to provide a link

between CWA, section 319 (State Management Programs), and state coastal zone

management programs under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA)? The program also gives EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) joint authority to approve state programs. The purpose of the

provision is to strengthen state and local efforts to manage land use activities that

degrade coastal waters and critical habitats. The provision requires that states

implement management measures (similar to Best Management Practices) in conformance with EPA guidance and implement “additional management measures for

land uses and critical coastal areas adjacent to impaired or threatened coastal waters.“7

To accomplish this purpose, the law requires that the state program must be

“coordinated closely with State and local water quality plans and programs.“8 Thus,

the State agencies are charged with developing a coordinated program that:

0 identifies categories of nonpoint sources that adversely impact coastal waters;

6 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, $ 306. (16 U.S.C. 1455).

7 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance.

October 1991. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. EPA.

* Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, $6217.

TOOLS FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 3-3
NOAA and the Coastal Zone Management Act

describes the guidance management measures to be employed, including operation

and maintenance, inspection procedures, and monitoring;

identifies the land uses and critical coastal areas that will require additional

management measures;

describes the state-developed additional management measures to be implemented

in critical areas;

documents the authorities the state will use to implement both the guidance and

additional management measures, including designation of a lead agency for each

source category; and

sets forth a schedule to achieve full implementation of the guidance management

measures within eight years (by 2004) of the first approval action by EPA and

NOAA, and full implementation of additional management measures within

eleven years of the first approval action.

The management measures guidance recognizes several land uses that should be

addressed in coastal areas. The guidance identifies management practices for each

land use type for the purpose of reducing the discharge of pollutants including,

sediment, nutrients and chemicals from such activities.9

In California, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Coastal

Commission worked together to develop a Coastal Nonpoint Source Program

that was submitted to EPA and NOAA in the fall of 1995. The proposed

coastal nonpoint program will build on the existing California Nonpoint

Source Plan, but goes further to identify “Critical Coastal Areas” -

watersheds that contain waterbodies identified in the State’s Waterbody

Assessmentlo as not meeting water quality standards. In these Critical

Coastal Areas the State proposes to target specific watersheds for

focused attention, including funding of pilot watersheds to test new

approaches, financial assistance through grants and loans, watershed

assessments conducted by multi-agency assessment teams and training

local groups in technical and planning functions. These activities are to be

coordinated through a watershed enhancement center that would serve as a

focal point for which local agencies and watershed action groups could

receive support for watershed activities. Details of the center’s program were

being developed as this report was going to press. To find out more contact

the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

9 Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

January 1993. U.S. EPA.

10 Water Quality Assessment. 1992. California State Water Resources Control Board.

3-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System

and Marine Sanctuaries

Section 315 of the CZMA created the National Estuarine Research Reserve System

(NERRS), a program designed to protect estuarine areas from pollution and development

pressures in order to allow for long-term monitoring and research. NOAA administers

these Reserves and works with the states to ensure that NOAA and state scientists have

the opportunity to study the natural and human processes that affect estuaries so that

impacts on these areas can be minimized. In California there are currently two

reserves, the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve in southern San

Diego County and the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve north of

Monterey Bay. A third area in San Francisco Bay has been proposed for inclusion in

the system.

At these reserve sites research and education projects are stressed with the goal of

providing information that would be useful for coastal managers throughout the State.

NERRS projects have included coastal restoration pilot projects, assessment and

abatement of nonpoint source pollution, biological monitoring, and inter-disciplinary

studies of estuarine productivity. Another goal of the Reserves is to promote public

awareness of the importance of estuarine resources through public lectures, interpretive

exhibits, and outreach programs. (See Chapter 2 for specific information on the

reserves.)

NOAA is also responsible for administering the National Marine Sanctuary program

authorized under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).

There are four sanctuaries off the California Coast - the Channel Islands, Monterey

Bay, the Gulf of the Farallons and the Cordell Banks. Although the sanctuaries are

offshore, the Monterey Bay Sanctuary is developing a water quality protection

program aimed at reducing the impacts of coastal activities on these near coastal

waters.

TOOLS FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 6 3-5
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

and the Porter - Cologne Act

While the concept of watershed protection is relatively new to the Clean Water Act,

the Nation’s most comprehensive State water quality program, the 1969 PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act has, since its enactment, given the SWRCB and

the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to control surface and

ground water pollution regardless of the source. Porter-Cologne, Division 7 of the

California Water Code, gives “the State and Regional Boards the authority to

implement a statewide program for water quality ~ontrol.“~~ Water quality control is

defined by the Act to mean “the regulation of any activity or factor which may affect

the quality of the waters of the state and includes prevention and correction of water

quality or nuisance.“12The primary tool for implementing water quality control plans

is through the issuance of “waste discharge requirements” which can be ordered for

any discharge to water that threatens to cause pollution.

In actual practice, however, the SWRCB has, until recently, focused most of its efforts

on point sources. Because point source discharges are carried by discrete conveyances

(pipes), they are more readily controlled through permit-based regulations like waste

discharge requirements (WDRs). While the Regional Boards have adequate authority

to issue WDRs for nonpoint source discharges, they seldom have the necessary

documentation or evidence needed to connect a specific discharge to its discharger.

The fact that such discharges often result from diffuse runoff from a number of

combined sources or landuses makes permit issuance extremely difficult. As a

consequence, the State and Regional Boards have relied primarily upon voluntary

programs to control nonpoint sources of water pollution.

Basin Planning

Driven by Porter-Cologne requirements, CWA section 208 grants from EPA were

used extensively during the 1970s and 1980s to assess water quality conditions in

California’s 16 hydrologic “planning basins.” The State and its nine Regional Boards

developed waterquality control plans, known as Basin Plans, to fulfill the requirements

of state and federal law. Basin Plans identify the beneficial uses made of water within

each hydrologic basin and the criteria, typically stated in physical or chemical

parameters, to be achieved and maintained to protect each beneficial use. Together,

the beneficial uses and the protection criteria comprise the “water quality objectives”

or standards for the waters in each Basin of the state.

Basin Plans include the actions necessary to support the beneficial uses the public

makes of streams and other water bodies. Beneficial uses include domestic water

supply, preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife, recreation, and others for

rivers, streams and lakes. Different beneficial uses demand differing physical or

l1 The Porter-Cologne Act of 1969 (Cal. Water Code section 13000 et seq.]

l2 Id. {Cal. Water Code section 13050(i)).

3-6 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
chemical criteria for their protection, and, therefore, for a given water body regulators

gear water quality safeguards to the “most sensitive use.” Two of the most sensitive

uses are cold-water fisheries and domestic water supplies. Understanding the beneficial

uses and their sensitivity to various land use activities is key for assessing the problems

in your watershed and for selecting the best management practices to mitigate the

effects of particular land use activities.

Each Basin Plan is divided into hydrologic sub-basins that define the boundaries of

the watersheds within the larger Hydrologic Unit (see sidebar). The Basin Plans have

been recently updated; the Regional Water Quality Control Board in your area has the

Basin Plan and Hydrologic Areas maps available for review. Each Basin Plan also

includes an ‘Implementation Chapter’ which identifies actions the Regional Board

needs to take to protect beneficial uses, including nonpoint source control. Nonpoint

source control has been largely one of voluntary prevention through the implementation of best management practices, or “BMPs” (see page 3-21). Some activities, such

as timber harvesting or feedlot operations, have become subject to governmental

regulation; in these cases BMPs have been incorporated into regulatory programs.

Contacting the local Regional Board and reviewing the Basin Plan for your area are

good starting points for any watershed effort (see the Networking Directory, Agency

Networking).

Hydrologic Basin Maps

California’s hydrologic boundaries are displayed on a series of 12

hydrologic basin maps at a scale of 1 to 500,000. Each river watershed

and its tributaries are assigned hydrologic numbers so that information

for that watershed may be identified by that number. The maps and

corresponding hydrologic unit numbers are used for coding waterrelated data for computer storage and retrieval. This data includes

sampling stations, discharge permits, stream flows, and water quality

and aquatic tissue monitoring. The 12 hydrologic basins are:

North Coast (NC) Tulare Lake (TL)

San Francisco Bay (SF) North Lahontan (NL)

Central Coast (CC) South Lahontan (SL)

Los Angeles (LA) Colorado River (CR)

Sacramento (SB) Santa Ana (SA)

San Joaquin (SJ) San Diego (SD)

To obtain copies of the Hydrologic Basin Map for your area contact:

Chief, Surveillance and Monitoring Unit

Division of Water Quality

State Water Resources Control Board

P.O. Box 100

Sacramento, California 95812-0100

T OOLS FOR F INDING S OLUTIONS TO P ROBLEMS b 3-7
The State Water Resources Control Board and the Porter -Cologne Act

Water Quality Certification - Section 401 of the Clean

Water Act

If your watershed plan is complete and your group is ready to implement an in-stream

restoration project that may be subject to a federal permit (see discussion about U. S.

Army Corps of Engineers and section 404, page 3- 10) you will need to work with the

local Regional Board to obtain a section 401 certification. Under section 401 of the

Clean Water Act (Water Quality Certification Program) the State and Regional

Boards are responsible for review of any federally permitted or licensed activities to

ensure that such activities comply with water quality standards set forth in the Basin

Plans. The Regional Board must review and certify that the project will not have

adverse water quality impacts before any federal permits can be issued for the project.

For the most part, the Regional Boards routinely certify stream restoration projects

that benefit the public and public resources. Their support of a project can be most

helpful when dealing with other regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of

Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game.

The Role of the State Water Resources Control Board in

Water Rights

It should come as no surprise that the citizens of arid California had legal procedures

for allocating precious water resources long before any thought was given to joining

the Union. From the beginning of statehood until the early 20th century, however, the

State’s administration of the rights of towns, businesses and individuals to dam and

divert streams was chaotic and contentious. Conflicts over water withdrawals were so

common they moved early-day California resident Mark Twain to observe that

“Whiskey is for drinkin’, water is for fightin’ over!”

In 1914 the California Legislature declared that surface waters that had not been put

to use by then were the property of the State? Henceforth, applicants would come to

the State for permission to dam, store, divert and use public stream resources. Because

of the enormous value of this limited resource, California’s post- 1914 administration

of water rights assumed the solemnity of a court with filings, hearings, sworn

witnesses, findings, appeals, and decisions. These were the province of the State

Water Rights Board until its replacement in 1967 by the State Water Resources

Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB was given the dual responsibility of

reconciling the administration of water rights with enforcement of the State’s water

pollution control laws.

13 Cal. Water Code $102

3-8 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Until a decade or so ago the administration of California’s water rights was

pretty much a one-way street. There seemed no end to the requests to obtain

water resources, beginning with the City of Los Angeles’ bold scheme to dam

the streams of the eastern Sierra Nevada and pipe them hundreds of miles

south. This plan was accomplished in 1940 and was followed immediately by

an explosion of water projects aided, or constructed in their entirety, by State

and federal agencies. Many of these projects were on coastal streams.

In the wake of Earth Day 1970, however, Californians began to challenge the

traditional management of the State’s streams. The National Audubon

Society, for example, sued Los Angeles over the city’s diversion of the

streams that historically fed Mono Lake, which lies at the foot of the eastern

Sierra. In its 1983 review of National Audubon’s complaint, the State

Supreme Court declared that the State’s waters are subject to a public trust

and that the State, as trustee, has a duty to preserve this trust property from

harmful diversions by water rights holders. l4 The court’s application of this

“public trust doctrine” means that water rights are not like property rights,

that they can never be owned outright like real estate. They can be revisited,

revised and, if necessary, recalled.

The SWRCB recognized the State Supreme Court’s public trust position on

State-granted water rights when it ordered protections for the Santa Clara

River steelhead in 1987, which we described earlier. It did so again when it

trimmed Los Angeles’ Mono Lake Basin water rights in 1994, and once more

in 1995 when it proposed that the Marin Municipal Water District reduce its

draw on Lagunitas Creek to protect coho salmon. There is

reason to believe the SWRCB will continue to amend

water rights wherever

degradation demonstrates that public trust

resources, including sa

birds, or important estuarine

plant communities have

been harmed by water

diversions.

l4 33 Cal.2d 419

TOOLS FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS b 3-9
n

B. OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LAWS THAT ASSIST

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

In addition to U.S. EPA, there are a number of federal agencies that can assist

watershed groups with technical information, planning and funding. The Agency

Networking Directory provides a comprehensive list of these contacts. Some of the

agencies and the laws they administer are crucial to any watershed planning effort;

their roles are outlined briefly below.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Rivers and

Wetlands Protection

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency responsible for

regulating activities in the nation’s waters. Until 1968 the purpose of the regulatory

program was to protect and facilitate navigation through the issuance of permits and

design specifications for levee and dam construction, maintenance dredging for port

and deep water channel facilities, flood control and shore stabilization projects. In

recent years the agency’s role has expanded greatly, however, to include other

responsibilities such as assessing project impacts to fish and wildlife and water

resource and wetlands protection. The regulatory authorities and responsibilities of

the Corps of Engineers are based primarily on two laws:”

4 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)

prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters, including diking,

dredging, filling or placement of structures, without a permit from the Corps.

4 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) regulates the

disposal of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. These

waters are defined by the section 404 provisions and court cases to include

all navigable waters, their tributaries and wetlands, tidal areas, lakes, and

intermittent streams and ponds. 1 6 Under section 404, a project, even a

beneficial stream restoration project, that entails movement of soil, stream

channel materials or placement of structures, must have a permit from the

Corps or fall into one of the exemptions before it can proceed.

Because section 404 is a provision of the Clean Water Act, it is administered jointly

by EPA and the Corps. The Corps has the lead role in deciding jurisdiction, processing

permit applications, issuing or denying permits and enforcement against violators.

EPA sets the standards followed by the Corps and has the final authority to veto a

permit decision made by the Corps.

l5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Regulatory Program. EP 1145-2-l.

l6 Federal Manual For Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands. 1989. Federal Interagency Committee for

Wetland Delineation. Interagency Cooperative Technical Publication.

3-10 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
For stream restoration projects it is vital to understand the regulatory process because

even small projects may fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps’ permitting authority

(see Figure 2). Unfortunately, section 404 does not distinguish between public benefit

stream restoration and development projects. From the point of view of the Corps, both

types of projects involve movement of soil or streambank materials (dredge materials),

and both may involve placement of fill materials. Even though your project may

merely involve placing log revetments to protect a bank, this can be considered fill by

the Corps. It is best to contact the the staff in charge of “jurisdiction” and “Nationwide

Permits” while in the planning stage to familiarize them with your project and to

request assistance in obtaining any needed permits.

The Section 404 Permit Process

1 - 1 FILL MATERIAL? 1. w

:ROPLAND?

STATE 401 f , “,-

CERTIFICATION

OR WAIVER?

COMPLIANCE?

IN THE PUBLIC

INTEREST?

AUTHORIZED

Figure 2.

TOOLS FOR F INDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS b 3-11
Other Federal Agencies and Laws that Assist Watershed Management

The California Marsh ManuaP7 from the Campaign to Save California’s Wetlands

provides an excellent in-depth description of the section 404 process and is a helpful

reference to the permit process.

n

r$9

To obtain a copy of the California Marsh Manual, contact the:

Campaign to Save California’s Wetlands

Southern California Office

19276 Torrey Pines Circle

Huntington Beach, CA 92648 l 714/374-4825

Northern California Office

Box 2065, Oakland, CA 94620-0651 l 510/654-7847

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) -

Endangered Species Act/Wildlife Protection

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) carries out many of the federal programs that

conserve and protect wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Service together with the NOAA

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the Endangered

Species Act @SA)LB which forms the basis for federal protection of plants, insects, fish

and wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered by extinction. NMFS has the

responsibility for Pacific anadromous salmonids and the FWS takes the lead for

terrestrial and freshwater species. The ESA charges NMFS and the FWS with five

main tasks:

4 Initiation or approval of petitions for listing of threatened or endangered

species.

4 Identifying critical habitat and developing recovery plans for listed species.

4 Providing consultations regarding endangered species to federal agencies

(US Army COE for section 404 permits) on federal projects or permitting

activities.

h Issuing violations and civil penalties to private parties, local, state or federal

agencies for unlawful “taking” of endangered species.

4 Issuing permits for “incidental taking” of threatened or endangered species.

Note: Under the ESA the definition of a “taking” is to “harass,

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture or collect, or to

attempt to engage inanysuch conduct” j16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(l)) .I8

I7 California Marsh Manual. May 1995. Campaign to Save California Wetlands.

l8 16 U.S.C. Q 1531 et seq.

3-12 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Once a species is listed under the ESA, any proposed or actual federal project affecting

the species or its habitat area is subject to review by the FWS or NMFS to determine

if the project may have adverse impacts or result in a taking. The project proponent

is required to consult with the FWS and NMFS and these agencies are required to issue

a “Biological Opinion,” identifying any potential impacts and mitigation measures

that would reduce or eliminate such impacts.

The ESA affects most development activities in critical habitat areas and, for this

reason, the Act has been the center of continued controversy. For example, a

development project, whether public or private, that involves land clearing that may

destroy habitat is subject to a permit for an incidental taking under section 10 of the

Act. This means that permits are required for road and other construction activities

if they are in, or adjacent to, critical habitat areas. In order to obtain a section 10

permit, the project proponent must submit an acceptable “habitat conservation plan”

to the FWS or NMFS. The habitat conservation plan must meet the requirements of

the ESA and of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), possibly including

the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Developing a habitat conservation plan is usually complex, costly, time consuming

and often blocks future land development. This aspect of the ESA has driven the State

of Califomia to try to find ways to streamline the process, especially for fast growing

areas like southern California. There, proposed development projects encroach upon

the habitat of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), the Cactus wren

(Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) and other coastal scrub habitat-dependent

species. The new approach is one of multispecies planning where habitat conservation

plans for several species are integrated into natural community conservation plans

(NCCP). NCCPs identify conservation measures and opportunities to protect a

number of species with one plan. This process has been adopted by the California

Legislature19 and is implemented by the Department of Fish and Game.20

The problem is statewide and serious enough that Governor Pete Wilson instituted

“The Agreement on Biological Diversity” to grapple with the issue. The Agreement

establishes a Statewide Executive Council (composed of the Secretary of the

Resources Agency and the heads of nine other State and federal agencies involved with

resource issues) “to develop guiding principles and policies, design a statewide

strategy to conserve biological diversity... through regional and local in~titutions.‘~~

Through a Memorandum of Understanding the Executive Council has agreed to

“encourage the participation of local public, landowner, and private organizations in

the formation of watershed or landscape associations’*” to develop specific cooperative

l9 A.B. 2172 (Chapter 765, stats. 1991)

*O Cal. Fish & Game Code 0 2800 et seq.

21 Memorandum of Understanding: California’s Coordinated Regional Strategy To Conserve

Biological Diversity.“Agreement on Biological Diversity ” 1992. The . Resources Agency of the State

of California.

22 Id. Section V. (B).

Tools FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 3-13
State Agencies that Assist in Watershed Management

projects and participate in Coordinated Resource Management Planning processes

(see discussion of Resource Conservation Districts, page 3-20) that would assist in the

achievement of the goals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a signatory to this

agreement along with the California Department of Fish and Game. These two

agencies probably have the most important role in implementing the agreement’s

stated goals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s role in watersheds is important in both the

planning and project implementation stage. In developing a watershed plan it is

important to recognize any areas within the watershed that have been identified by the

FWS as critical habitat for endangered species. The FWS office nearest to your

watershed can provide information on the presence of federally listed endangered

species and critical habitat in the watershed. The staff can provide copies of existing

habitat conservation plans that may contain essential information that can be used to

protect sensitive sites. Under the MOU discussed above, FWS biologists may be able

to provide technical assistance in the assessment of habitat areas and through

participation in cooperative resource planning teams for the watershed.

FWS staff have a major role in the issuance of the section 404 permits (discussed

above) that may be required for stream restoration projects. The agency reviews all

federal permit applications under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act23 to ensure

that the proposed activities will not jeopardize endangered species or critical habitat

areas. To make sure that your project moves through the permit process smoothly, it

is best to involve FWS staff early in the planning stages.

C. STATE AGENCIES THAT ASSIST IN WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT

The State of California employs several agencies to monitor, maintain and protect its

vast resources. These agencies have different missions and are responsible for various

aspects of resource protection. While the State Water Resources Control Board and

its nine Regional Boards are critical because the need to protect and maintain water

quality often drives the watershed planning process, other resources are closely tied

to water quality protection and need to be considered in developing a plan or in

implementing watershed protection projects. The goal of the following discussion is

to encourage watershed groups to contact these agencies early in the planning process

to enlist technical staff assistance ondatacompilation, permitting and legal requirements

for implementing any plan recommendations.

23 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. { 16 U.S.C. $ 661-66C}.

3-14 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG)

The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is the State counterpart to the federal U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and in this capacity serves to protect, maintain and enhance

California’s numerous species of fish, wildlife and plants. Like its federal counterpart,

DFG is responsible for administering the California Endangered Species Act which

lists California species as threatenedorendangered from extinction. Unlike the federal

Act, California’s Endangered Species Act provides that the decision regarding such

listings be made by the California Fish and Game Commission, a five member board

appointed by the Governor. Species can be listed under the State or federal law, or

both. Where species are jointly listed under both State and federal law, DFG usually

assists in the development of a recovery plan.”

To aid habitat conservation planning the Department’s Natural Heritage Division

maintains a Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) that contains information and

maps on the location of species of special concern; threatened, endangered and rare

animals; plants and natural communities throughout the state. An initial step in

watershed planning is to contact DFG to request a report or map overlay from this

Data Base. To do so, you will need to know the name of the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) Quadrangle maps that cover the watershed. The smallest area that the data

base can search is a 71/2-minute quad, and the price of the search varies with the number

of “hits” or information found within each quad search requested. For each occurrence

found, a report of the species or community is provided at a cost of $8.00 for

commercial or $4.00 for government or nonprofit requesters. If there is a possibility

of a number of occurrences within a given area, it is a good idea to get a cost estimate

for the report before going ahead with the request.

To find out more about the Natural Diversity Data Base or to get a cost estimate

for a report call the DFG Marketing Unit at 916/ 324-3812. w1

As discussed above, the Department of Fish and Game is one of the major signatories

to the Governor’s “Agreement on Biological Diversity,” and DFG staff regularly

provide technical assistance and data regarding fish and wildlife populations for

watershed and community planning. Department biologists have, for years, conducted

fish and wildlife surveys in their assigned areas. Often this data is unpublished but can

be extremely valuable in documenting the presence of important species in a

watershed.

In addition to providing staff assistance for land use planning, DFG promotes habitat

restoration activities through publications and grants (see Appendix B). One of the

most comprehensive and useful tools for fisheries restoration is its California

24 For more information about the life history, habits and distribution of threatened and endangered

plant and animal species, request a copy of the Department of Fish and Game’s: Annual Report on the

Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants.

TOOLS F OR F INDING S OLUTIONS TO P ROBLEMS h 3-l 5
State Agencies that Assist in Watershed Management

Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual25 which provides detailed infonation

on assessing a watershed; inventorying salmon and steelhead habitat; and planning,

implementing and monitoring projects.

I!!22 To obtain a copy of the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration

Manual contact: .

California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division

ATTN: Salmon Habitat Restoration Coordinator

1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

DFG is also responsible for protecting the natural flow, channel and banks of rivers,

streams and lakes. DFG must be notified of any work that may alter or divert natural

flows or that may change the bed, channel or banks of any waterbody. If the project

falls within Department jurisdiction, under Fish and Game Code sections 1601-1603,

the project proponent must get a Streambank Alteration Agreement from the local

DFG warden. An agreement acts as a permit in that it specifies the time frame for

completion of the project and may include mitigations needed to protect fish and

wildlife from potential impacts of the work. Stream restoration activities that modify

streambanks, stabilize the channel or provide habitat structures require a section 1603

permit. Call your local DFG regional office to arrange to meet with staff in the initial

stages of watershed plan development or designing a project (for DFG numbers, see

the “Agency Networking” section in the Networking Directory). If the staff have

assisted in project design and development, obtaining the needed agreements can be

a relatively simple task.

California Coastal Commission

The California Coastal Commission regulates development and promotes conservation of coastal areas designated within the coastal zone boundaries as defined by the

California Coastal Act of 197626 and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (see

above discussion and Chapter 1 - B . , “An Overview of Coastal Zone Management Act

Amendments,” page l-2). The Coastal Commission’s policies regarding development, public access and other land use issues are set forth in the statewide Coastal

Plan. The Commission assists in the development, reviews and approves Local

Coastal Plans (LCPs) prepared by local governments for incorporation into their

General Plans (See Figure 3). Once a LCP is approved, the local government assumes

responsibility for regulating land use within the LCP area. Not all coastal areas have

approved LCPs. Where a LCP exists, a watershed plan should be consistent with its

goals and policies.

25 Flosi, Gary and Forrest L. Reynolds. October 1994. California Salmonid Stream Habitat

Restoration Manual. Second Edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries

Division, Sacramento, CA.

26 California Coastal Act. Public Resources Code 5 30000 et esq.

3-l 6 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Local Coastal Program

LCP Certification Status

As I ,f July 1, 1993

m County LCP Eff~ctlwly Certlflad

a County LUP Effectively Certlfiad

m No County LCP/iJJP

Effectlwly Grtlfled

I Cltv LCP Effectlwly Cwtlflad

E Clt; LUP Effactlvely Cerilflad

0 No LCP/LUP Effectively Cwtifiod

In the California coastal zone, the Commission, in conjunction with the Department

of Fish and Game, is responsible for regulating development in wetland areas under

the California Coastal Act. The Commission reviews Environmental Impact Reports

and issues Coastal Development Permits for wetland-related projects within the

coastal zone. This is important because most stream restoration projects occur in the

riparian or wetland areas of a watershed. As with the section 404 permitting process,

the Commission guidelines do not distinguish between restoration and development

projects. Your restoration project may require a Coastal Development Permit to

proceed.

Segundo

3 Monhotton Eeoch

7 Hermoro aeoch q ilso

/ 2 Nsroarl Baach 7 iledondo Beach 1 - -- - - - -. ( _ _ _ _. _

2 iorronce 1 I twine

&,o+esj a Loguno Beach m Ocsontide 7

m Doles Vsrdas I S Corlsbod YIXICO

= Lnnn R.nrh

_.-. _ _ . . . . . . - - \.

- -- 1 I---.. m Avolon -

’ 0 San Clemsnte

m Son Diego

m Coronodo

3 2 of 4 LCP Segments iffsctlvelv Certlflcd m Notional City ,

3 4 of 7 LCP Segment5

H Chula Vista I

Effactlvaly Cartlfled m Imperial Beochi

Figure 3.

Tools FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 4 3-17
State Agencies that Assist in Watershed Management

For information on the Coastal Commission process, request the Procedural

Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California’s Coastal Zone.27

Write to the Coastal Commission, 45 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-2219.

California Coastal Conservancy

The Coastal Conservancy is a public agency chargedwiththe restoration, enhancement

and acquisition of coastal resources.2 8 The Conservancy has no regulatory authority,

instead it has the welcome task of distributing grants and coordinating funding for

resource enhancement planning and related studies in the coastal zone or in watershed

areas that directly impact the coastal zone. Conservancy funding comes from bond

measures or environmental license plate funds. In addition to grants, the Conservancy

uses other means of financing its projects including tax

incentives implemented through conservation easements.

Conservancy staff can provide advice and assistance to

land trusts that are interested in establishing conservation

and public access easements, and to watershed groups

desiring to initiate a watershed enhancement plan. For

further information about Conservancy grant funding see

the discussion of funding in Appendix B.

Department of Water Resources (DWR)

Under the Urban Creek Restoration and Flood Control Act

of 19852g the Department of Water Resources (DWR)

provides grant assistance to local agencies and organizations

for the purpose of stabilizing natural stream channels,

tevegetating riparian areas, and maintaining stream channel

capacities to reduce the possibility of flood damage and to

enhance natural environmental values. The intent of the

program is to restore creek environments to enhance

aesthetic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values and opportunities for urban

dwellers. The program has been successful in getting local governments to begin to

develop flood control and streambank stabilization projects that rely on more lowcost, non-structural, so-called “bio-engineering” techniques to achieve improved

flood damage reduction goals. Several cities throughout the State have built or are

planning downtown revitalization projects around the notion of "daylighting” previously

culverted or buried creeks using funds and assistance from DWR. For more

information regarding the DWR grant program see Appendix B.

3-18 4

27 California Coastal Commission. 1994. Procedural Guidunce for the Review of Wetland Projects in

California’s Coastal Zone.

28 Public Resources Code 0 3 125 1 et seq.

2g Ca. Gov. Code 0 65303.4 and Ca. Water Code $7048.

WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
State Lands Commission (SLC)

The California State Lands Commission (SLC) and its staff manage some 4 million

acres of state owned public lands. These lands, held in public trust, include the beds

of rivers, lakes and streams, and the tidal and submerged lands along the State’s 1,100

miles of coastline. The Commission is also responsible for “school lands,” those lands

originally granted to the California by Congress in the 1800s to benefit public

education. The Commission’s policies for management of these State lands rely on a

balance between environmental protection, promoting economic growth and the

Public Trust Doctrine, which sets forth the right of the public to use these water

resources for navigation, fisheries, commerce, environmental preservation and

recreation, among others. One of the Commission’s main responsibilities is to secure

and protect the public’s right to access public lands and waterways.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Lands Commission

staff provide analysis and review all projects that occur in areas under their

jurisdiction. To accomplish this task, the Commission maintains a Coastal Resource

Database which contains information on fish and wildlife resources, geology,

shoreline topography, etc., arranged on computerized maps layers known as a

Geographic Information System (GIS). The Commission’s GIS serves as a central

repository for information gathered from other government agencies and public

institutions and may be able to provide useful information regarding the coastal

resources in your watershed.

A catalog of information from the Coastal Resource Database can be obtain ed

by contacting: IL!

Eric Kauffman, State Lands Commission + 916/574-l 879

Or to access the database contact:

Teale Data Center

P.O. Box 13436, Sacramento, CA 95813-4436

ATTN: GIS Unit + 916/263-1886

Finally, because watershed plans involve river and stream beds, they are subject to

SLC review to ensure CEQA compliance. Fortunately, the Commission has been

active in promoting the protection and restoration of the State’s rivers, and encourages

local watershed groups in the watershed planning process. To this end, the SLC has

produced an informative publication examining river resource status and trends, titled

California’s Rivers: A Public Trust Reporp available for $15.00 from the:

California State Lands Commission

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South

Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 + 916/574-l900

u, California State Lands Commission. 1993. California Rivers: A Public Trust Report. California

State Lands Commission, Sacramento, CA.

Tools FOR FINDING S OLUTIONS TO P ROBLEMS b 3-l 9
State Agencies that Assist in Watershed Management

Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs)

California’s 113 Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) are the state chartered,

local public agencies charged, under Division 9 of the Public Resources Code, with

developing land, soil and water conservation programs in their local areas throughout

the state. Districts are organized as a subunit of State government, but are created by

the local County Board of Supervisors. There may be more than one RCD in a county,

but a few areas are not covered by a District at all.

Districts receive technical support and assistance

from the federal Natural Resource Conservation

Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation

Service, and the State Department of Conservation.

Their volunteer Boards of Directors work with NRCS

to provide free conservation assistance to residents

within the District boundaries. As local pubic

agencies, the RCDs are able to receive and administer

grant funds from State and federal agencies and often

act as the lead agency working with watershed

organizations and groups to develop watershed plans,

provide CEQA documentation, and implement

watershed projects.

The local RCD can be instrumental in bringing

federal, State and local agency resources together

with interested local groups to develop a watershed

plan through the Coordinated Resource Management

and Planning process or CRMP (pronounced ‘crimp’).

The CRMP process is a form of community-based

resource planning that attempts to get all the interested parties to meet together to

identify resource problems, organize information and develop recommended programs

and plans to better manage their resources. Most CRMPs are formed around a

geographic area of concern and the process is considered the optimum way to achieve

a workable watershed plan. Most of the examples of good watershed planning

presented here have Resource Conservation District involvement at some level:

Because Districts can play an important support role for any watershed organization,

the “Networking Directory” at the end of this document contains the list of local

Districts and their phone numbers.

For more information about RCDs, call the:

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts at 916/ 447-7237

or your local District listed in the Networking Directory.

3-20 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
D. A WORD ABOUT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Best Management Practices, or “BMPs,” are the controls used to prevent pollution,

generated by farming, grazing, timber harvest, urban and other dispersed land-use

activities, from entering surface and ground waters. Impacts to water quality from

such activities are referred to as “nonpoint source pollution” to differentiate them from

“end-of-pipe” or point sources which are waste discharges made to waters from

factories, sewer treatment plants and other more readily identified sources with pipes

or conveyances which carry the waste to the waterbody.

Pollution from point sources is controlled by permits, called “waste discharge

requirements” under State laws. These permits specify the level of waste allowed in

discharges made to lakes, rivers or other waterbodies. The discharger is required to

control its manufacturing or wastewater treatment processes in ways designed to

comply with the waste discharge requirements. To ensure compliance with their

permit, dischargers are required to monitor their effluent and report their results to the

appropriate Regional Board.

In contrast, nonpoint source pollution has no single point of entry, but enters waters

through normal rainfall runoff patterns. This means controls or BMPs must be aimed

at not only reducing pollution, such as sediment, but also at preventing pollutants from

reaching waterbodies altogether. There are many kinds of BMPs. Some are structural,

such as settling ponds; others involve cultural practices like timing of pesticide

applications; or others involve public education such as programs that educate

residents about proper disposal of oil or chemicals. Nonpoint source pollution control

programs use those BMPs that can be shown to be practical and effective means of

controlling polluting runoff, given technical, institutional and economic constraints.

Typical BMPs have been developed based on the type of land-use activity where they

should be applied. There are many BMP manuals available from various agencies.

One of the most comprehensive is the “Guidance for Specifying Management

Measures for Nonpoint Source Pollution.“31 These include practices for agriculture,

forestry, road and building construction, marinas, streambank erosion, etc. Applicable

BMPs are often identified as part of the recommendations for implementing a

watershed enhancement or restoration plan, and often form the basis for a program of

watershed-wide pollution prevention. The best way to encourage landowners to adopt

such practices as part of your plan is to get their cooperation in the selection and

educational efforts surrounding their use. Where there are no BMPs that relate to a

specific land-use situation in a watershed, locally affected interests can be the best

source of improved techniques. This approach is well illustrated by the grape-growing

community in the Sonoma Valley watershed bordering San Francisco Bay.

31 Guidunce Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

January 1993. U.S. EPA.

TOOLS FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 3-21
Vineyard Practices - The Sonoma Valley Grape

Growers Come Together to Protect Sonoma Creek

The Sonoma Creek watershed drains 110,000 acres of southeastern Sonoma County.

The mouth of Sonoma Creek enters San Pablo Bay, and its surrounding marshlands

provide habitat to three rare and endangered species, the California freshwater shrimp

(Syncaris pacifica), California clapper rail (Reithrodontomys raviventris) and the

Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus Zongirostris

obsoletus). The Sonoma Valley has experienced rapid

urban and agricultural development in the last twenty

years, resulting in extensive impacts to the water

quality of Sonoma Creek and its tributaries as evidenced

by its listing as an impaired waterbody. Although there

is impairment, many of the upper tributaries still

support steelhead populations.

The lower watershed supports dairy and hay operations

but wine grape production is the primary agricultural

use in the valley. About 13,000 acres are in vineyard

production. Much of this acreage is located on hillslopes

with high erosion potential (>5% slope). As with other

vineyard areas in the north coast, the Phylloxera

biotype “B” aphid infestation is expected to impact the

grape vines resulting in the need to replant large areas

of vineyards in the near future. The Sonoma Valley

Vintners and Growers Alliance recognized that such

large-scale replanting efforts and resulting soil

disturbance could degrade the water quality of the watershed. If appropriate practices

were not used, sensitive beneficial uses, including the steelhead fishery and spawning,

could be adversely impacted.

The growers’ association got together with the Southern Sonoma County Resource

Conservation District to determine the best ways to prevent water quality impacts

associated with vineyard production. Funded by a grant from EPA, together they

developed the Vineyard Management Practices ManuaL3* Completed in June 1993,

the manual provides specifications for treatments and practices aimed at reducing

hillslope erosion and controlling sedimentation, and introduces sustainable agriculture

concepts that expand grower awareness of practices that promote a healthy watershed.

The long-term goal is to encourage widespread, voluntary adoption of these practices

by the grower community.

32 Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District. 1993. Vineyard Management Practices:

An Environmental Approach to Development and Maintenance. Southern Sonoma County Resource

Conservation District.

3-22 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
To achieve this goal the next phase is a project aimed at demonstrating the practices

to the growers and the public. Several major vineyards are volunteering to implement

various practices on a variety of sites to show the economic cost and water quality

benefits associated with the treatments. These demonstration vineyards will provide

an “outdoor classroom” for other growers to adopt these practices.

The growers recognize that, in this era of “green consumerism,” it is good business

to make the public aware that they are adopting environmentally beneficial and

sustainable practices. The demonstration project will foster public awareness by

sponsoring the local school district’s “Adopt-A-Watershed” program (see Chapter4);

and by providing public tours of these sites.

For more information or copies of the Vineyard Management Practices: An

Environmental Approach to Development and Maintenance, contact: l!m!l

Robin Davis, Secretary

Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District

1301 Redwood Way, Suite 170

Petaluma, CA 94954. 707/ 794-l242

i E. GETTING AGENCY ASSISTANCE ./ : .:.

glnli.:. Federal, State and local agencies can have a strong supporting ‘:.. ::. ., .‘.. role in watershed planning. That support can take the form of

information, funding, or technical assistance depending on the

resources of the watershed. This chapter has outlined the mission and

authorities of different agencies to help direct watershed interests to the right

place for assistance. The “Networking Directory” at the end of this document

contains an Agency Directory that includes a list of phone numbers and

contacts for the most important agencies. To utilize these agency resources

effectively, it is best if your watershed group does some preparation before

calling agency staff. Most staff are quite willing to provide answers, but the

watershed group has to be able to ask the right questions. As a general rule,

it is best to start by contacting local agencies, such as the city or county

planning departments, to find specific information for your watershed. The

next step would be to contact State agencies, and finally, federal agencies.

Initial planning efforts can resemble a scavenger hunt, but the following

checklist of information should help to organize the search so that everyone’s

job is easier.

TOOLS FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 4 3-23
n

Assistance Checklist

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Determine size and identify boundaries of the watershed. Get a copy of the

Hydrological Unit map for the area (see discussion on Regional Water Quality

Control Boards, page 3-7), and make a note of the unit number. Even a relatively

small creek has a sub-watershed designation. The smaller the watershed, the

easier it is to obtain results.

Get a map of the watershed area that shows the topography (terrain features).

U.S. Geological Survey maps are useful, but the local city or county planning

department may have maps at a larger scale.

Obtain maps of the soil types within the watershed. These are available at the

local Resource Conservation District (RCD) office.

Identify land uses within the watershed boundary. Again, the county planning

department may have the latest land-use maps for the area. In wildland areas,

the federal or State agency responsible for managing the area may have aerial

photographs. Look for development trends such as new construction or road

building.

List the natural resources of the watershed, the agencies involved in managing

these resources, and the users of these resources. These are the potential interests

that need to be involved in the planning effort.

Gather information on social trends, particularly, economic and employment

data, and where possible, trends in local attitudes.

Identify and contact other organizations that can be allied to your effort. Meet

with the local RCD, city or county staff to garner their support. It is important

to enlist their help to contact agencies to assist in developing the plan. The larger

your list of cooperators the more help you can expect from State and federal

agencies.

Start a log book or good filing system that is organized by topic. This will prevent

duplication of efforts.

Once the information on this checklist has been gathered, it will be much

easier to identify which agencies will be the most helpful to the watershed

effort. When contacting agencies let the staff know that the goal is to develop

a watershed plan, name the watershed and its location, the resources, such as

fisheries or drinking water, that may be at risk. Be clear about the type of

information or assistance that is needed from the agency. Be patient and

courteous. If the person does not know the answer your question, ask where

you may be able to get an answer. As with most endeavors, persistence is the

key to finding the information you need.

3-24 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Resources

4 California Marsh Manual. May 1995. Campaign to Save California

Wetlands.

4 California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual. Flosi, Gary and

Forrest L. Reynolds. October 1994. Second Edition. California Department

of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento, CA.

4 California Rivers: A Public Trust Report. 1993. California State Lands

Commission, Sacramento, CA.

4 Vineyard Management Practices: An Environmental Approach to

Development and Maintenance. 1993. Southern Sonoma County Resource

Conservation District.

TOOLS FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 4 3-25
4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
4 b Organizing Your Community

to Win Cooperation

The 1960s and 1970s were the heyday of planning. Local, state and federal agencies

created general and redevelopment plans, regional waste treatment plans, and

extensive forest and park plans involving millions of acres of land. Many state and

local comprehensive plans aimed at solving pollution problems were never fulIy

implemented. Most of these early plans share an important characteristic--they were

imposed from the top down by various authorities without enough participation from

the people most affected by the plan.

The main lesson to be learned from this is that watersheds are not only hydrological

divisions with administrative boundaries, but are made up of communities. In areas

throughout California, environmental protection efforts have been most successful

where locally-based planning processes have been used to focus the political will

toward finding solutions to agreed-upon problems. It is the affected community that

is the key to planning and implementation of environmentally sustainable practices,

the so called Best Management Practices. As such, the only way to foster long-term

implementation is for the community interests to have a role in the planning from the

beginning.

Effectively involving the target community is a difficult, time-consuming approach

but one that promises a more successful program and better return on the investment

of time and energy. The following examples of successful watershed planning efforts

illustrate these principles.

A. CONSENT BUILDING ON THE GARCIA RIVER

The North Coast of California is famous for its rugged picturesque shore. Grassy

coastal bluffs and forested slopes meet the Pacific Ocean along Highway 1, the scenic

route extending from San Francisco to the California border and beyond. In Mendocino County, 120 miles north of San Francisco, the coastal range gives rise to several

small coastal rivers that are known for their outstanding salmon and steelhead sport

fisheries and unique fishing villages. SmaII towns located at the mouth of these rivers

form communities whose livelihoods depend upon tourism, commercial and sport

fishing, logging, farming and gravel extraction.

This dependence upon scenery on one hand and resource use on the other creates a

fragile balance, and conflict, in the communities themselves. Nowhere is this more

apparent then on the Garcia River located close to Point Arena, a small town situated

on Highway 1. The Garcia River flows from headwaters high in the mixed conifer

ridges of the coastal range to a small estuary surrounded by potato fields and dairy

lands. The tranquillity here belies deeper issues between those that depend upon

traditional uses of the watershed’s resources and environmental interests. Despite

these closely held beliefs, the Garcia River community was able to find the one thing
that all the interests could agree on - that was the need to restore the populations of

salmon to historic levels. It is the process of finding common ground among sharply

opposing viewpoints that makes the Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Project an

example of innovative coastal protection efforts.

The Garcia River drains 72,000 acres (114 square miles). The river’s 44-mile

mainstem plunges from an elevation of 2,470 feet to sea level in a very short distance.

The upper watershed is steep forestland, much of which has been logged and is scarred

by erosion from past logging. The more gently sloping lower reach, with coastal

terraces and alluvial bottom lands is used for farming and grazing. The small estuary

serves as an important habitat for anadromous fish, many species of shore birds and

waterfowl, and other wildlife, including the endangered Point Arena Mountain Beaver

(Aplodontia rufa). Until the mid- 198Os, the river was widely known for its large coho

salmon and its excellent steelhead fishery, but the combined pressures of a long

drought and degraded spawning habitat had resulted in a serious decline in the

anadromous fish population, especially the coho.

g Balancing Interests Is the Key

In 1990, Friends of the Garcia River (FrOG) the local watershed

group approached the Mendocino County Resource Conservation

District (District) with the idea of developing a plan that would

stem the decline in the river’s resources and address the visible

impacts of past land use activities. The District, like other Resource

Conservation Districts, is a special district set up under state law

to provide soil and water conservation assistance to landowners in

California Counties (see Chapter 3, Resource Conservation

Districts, page 3-20). The community request was timely. The

- District had worked for ten years restoring the Tomki Creek

-i watershed in the Eel River and felt it was ready to undertake a

similar project in a coastal watershed.

FrOG members were largely from the environmental community. The District felt that

the long-term success of the project hinged on pulling together a broad range of

interests. To this end a Watershed Advisory Group was formed; its 12 members

represented major interest groups in the watershed including gravel operators, the

timber industry, environmentalists, agricultural and tribal representatives, and

commercial and sport fishermen. The District asked several agencies to provide

technical assistance, including the California Coastal Conservancy, Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS), the Department of Fish and Game, the North Coast

Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Mendocino County Water Agency,

University of California Cooperative Extension and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

4-2 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
The development of the watershed plan was supported with a $100,000 grant from

the Coastal Conservancy. The Advisory Group held public meetings every other

month throughout the 1 8-month planning process to develop Plan goals, review each

chapter and make plan recommendations. Consensus was reached on every Plan

recommendation. The Plan was completed in October 1992 with the stated purpose

of fostering the conservation, restoration and sound management of the Garcia

River’s natural resources. The main objective of the community embodiedinthe Plan

is to restore the salmonid fishery in the Garcia River by improving fish habitat and

treating areas of accelerated erosion that impact water quality and fisheries habitat. 

By the time of the Public Hearing on adoption of the Plan, the community offered

complete support. No negative comments were received. The process worked - by

ensuring community-based support, few, if any, felt uncomfortable with the outcome

of the plan.

Flexibility and Cooperation

Community agreement on the goals and recommendations of the Plan took time and

effort. The Advisory Group did not always agree -- the first year of the planning

process was fraught with conflict. Conflict was replaced with accommodation as the

different interests began to understand each other’s viewpoints making it possible to

find workable solutions.

One of the first obstacles to confront the group was gravel extraction. This was an

extremely divisive issue that threatened the ability of the Advisory Group to forge any

agreement. The group was aware that gravel extraction was a county-wide concern

and was subject to State and federal regulatory authority. Since, the community had

agreed that the plan would focus on voluntary practices, regulated activities needed

to be treated differently. Gravel operations were an important part of the river’s

complexion that could not be ignored.

The Advisory Group came up with a compromise: create an outline for a Gravel

Management Plan for the river and let the County Water Agency produce a separate

plan that would become a model for the entire county. To achieve this, the District

asked the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide a team of

hydrologists and river planning experts to recommend the tasks needed for a

comprehensive gravel management plan. The NRCS Hydrologic Unit Planning Team

from Davis, California, provided a clear outline, and the District assisted the

Mendocino County Water Agency in obtaining an EPA section 205(j)(2) planning

grant to prepare the Gravel Plan. The contentious gravel quagmire was turned into a

positive long-term solution that would benefit rivers throughout the County.

l Mendocino County Resource Conservation District. 1992. The Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan. Prepared by J. Monschke Watershed Management and William M. Kier Associates for the

California Coastal Conservancy.

ORGANIZING YOUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION 4 4-3
l!!iQ!l

Implementing the Plan - Creative Funding Sources

While planning can be difficult, getting the recommendations on the ground is the true

test of plan acceptance. Garcia Plan implementation has been initiated through

funding received from AT&T and the County District Attorney’s Office. This funding

was a boon that can largely be attributed to the existence of the Plan and the

perseverance of FrOG and the Advisory Group. In July 1992, AT&T contractors

installing a fiber optic line accidentally spilled several thousand gallons of drilling mud

into the river. The District and the Advisory Group members negotiated with AT&T

regarding the mitigation for the damage and were awarded over $200,000 in funds,

part of which went to the Friends of the Garcia to establish monitoring stations and

to set up a GIS data base. The Advisory Group agreed upon an Action Plan to set

priorities and, although the funds were nowhere near the amount needed to fully fund

the projects on the list, they served as match for other grants, including funds from the

Coastal Conservancy. Restoration of the Garcia River Watershed has become a

reality. Although it will take a long-term commitment to restore the river, the

community is willing to meet the challenge.

Copies of the Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan, are available

for $10.00 per copy.

Copies of the District’s 20-minute video, Tomki Watershed: A Project

of Community Concern are available for purchase at $15.00 or

rental for $10.00.

Contact the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District

405 Orchard Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 l 707/ 468-9223

Initiating Community-Based Watershed Planning

The planning process on the Garcia River Watershed offers some important insights

on good watershed planning. The Plan was formulated with impressive community

involvement over the two years of planning, and the strong bonds formed during the

planning process continue to be an asset for long-term implementation of the plan. The

following approaches and principles formed the basis for the planning effort.

‘Who, What, When, Where and How”

The Garcia River Plan was begun by asking a few simple questions: “What, Who,

Where, When and How” can the watershed be improved?” Once the answers to these

questions were elicited, the next step was to target the affected and/or interested parties

in the watershed and to start to work with them (for more on organizing an outreach

effort see Appendix A).

4-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
WHAT are the Watershed Problems and goals?

Begin by defining the nature of the problem you want to concentrate on and the

possible goal of the efforts. Be as specific as possible. The problem may seem obvious

to you, but bear in mind that this “problem definition” will be used to convey the need

and importance of such goals to people outside of your organization. Problem

definition and goal setting will eventually be critical in monitoring the progress and

effectiveness of the watershed planning effort.

WHO can assist in defining the problem and achieving the goals?

Define all of the agencies or organizations that may have authority over the problem

and possible resources to contribute to the activities. Describe what the authority or

resources entail (regulations, technical information or other expertise, grants or loan

funds). To the extent possible, these groups should be involved in the effort. These

“stakeholders” can be of great assistance in finding solutions to the problem.

WHERE do these problems exist?

Determine where the problem exists and the best place to focus efforts. Is it a

watershed-wide problem or should the focus be on a specific sites within the

watershed?

HOW can these problems/goals be addressed?

Describe the plan of action for solving the target problem. The ‘how’ cannot be

completely determined at the beginning of the planning process because the affected

community or target audience should be involved in determining the course of action.

The approach that has been the most effective is to 1) research what has been done in

the past, not only on the particular issue but on related issues (are there existing BMPs?

have they been implemented?); 2) evaluate these efforts for their effectiveness (what

programs or delivery mechanisms have been tried? have they worked?), and 3) outline

a general course of action that allows for maximum flexibility.

WHEN can the effort be completed?

Set the time frame for accomplishing tasks. Understand that when you are involving

outside groups, especially volunteer efforts, accomplishing the goals may take more

time.

Working with the Affected Community

Once these questions have been answered your organization will be in a good position

to organize an advisory group composed of members of the target community. The

following ten principles2 were used as the framework for the Garcia planning process

and provide some insights on the most effective way to use community-based planning

to achieve the goals of your watershed plan:

2 These rules are based on: Pinkerton, E. 1991. Locally based water quality planning: contributions

to fish habitat protection. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 48: 1326-1333.

ORGANIZING YOUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION b 4-5
Working with the Affected Community

1.

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

Provide purpose and impartiality: The leaders of the effort must have a clear

sense of direction that allows for an outcome that is based on community goals.

The organization must also have the capability to implement plan recommendations.

Develop good coordination: The coordinator of the planning process must be

experiencedin negotiation and be able to bring together divergent interests in a fair

and impartial manner.

Involve your worst enemies: The selection of watershed planning group

members must include a balance of representatives from all the affected local

interests. Those interests which are the most likely to be negative about the efforts

are as critical to the process as the supporters.

Find common ground: Encourage committee members to explaintheirinterests,

not to take positions.

Empower all interests: Recognize that the beginning of the process will focus

on education. Technical matters must be clearly understood by all members of the

group to enable them to become active participants in decision-making.

Establish a process: The watershed committee needs to set ground rules and

establish a decision-making process to be used in setting goals and in developing

both short- and long-term objectives.

Build consensus: The process must help build consensus among the committee

members. If there is no consensus on an issue then find another way to resolve it.

Reach out to the Community: Community support can only be built through

community outreach concerning the goals and recommendations of the plan and

through participation in volunteer projects.

Develop an Action Plan: Plan recommendations must be prioritized into a

strategy or action plan for implementation that is attainable.

10. Recognize community control: The organization overseeing the planning

process should be willing to intervene in the process only if there is stalemate, and

otherwise should avoid being rigid or trying to push things along too quickly.

These principles are basic elements for any successful local planning process. The

principles should be used as guidelines for a rather fluid process - they are not rigid

rules of the game. Each watershed community is as different as the people who live

there, and each watershed plan should be a reflection of the desired future of the

community. Only when the community has accepted the process will there be a

willingness to volunteer to protect the environment and improve the resources.

4-6 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
B. CREATING NATURAL ALLIES - NAPA RIVER OWNERS

MANUAL AND LAND STEWARDSHIP

Like the Garcia River, the local communities along the Napa River have developed a

watershed plan to grapple with intense resource conflicts. Here the problems of rapid

urbanization are often at odds with expansion of the lucrative wine grape industry.

Both need clean water; both impact water quality and create stiff competition for the

water needed by the area’s fish and wildlife.

Napa Valley is world renowned for its wines and is California’s pioneer grapeproducing area. Beyond the vineyards, the Napa River watershed has outstanding

scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife resources. The river flows through downtown

Napa adding to its charm, but causes periodic flood damage during northern

California’s heavy winter rains. Below Napa, the river broadens as it meanders

through the tidal Napa Marsh. The marsh supports several endangered species,

including the California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica). The marsh provides

critical habitat for young trout and salmon during their out migration and is a wellused stopover for thousands of birds during the fall and spring migrations.

The human inhabitants are dependent upon this watershed too. It provides 85 percent

of their drinking supplies from ground and surface water. Increasingly, the Napa

River’s water quality is being impacted by stormwater from urban and agricultural

uses and from diversions for irrigation. Groundwater supplies are susceptible to

problems associated with overpumping, such as subsidence and salt water intrusion.3

As a result of these problems, in the early 199Os, the San Francisco Bay Regional

Water Quality Control Board identified the Napa River as one the leading contributors

of pollution to San Pablo Bay, the northern portion of San Francisco Bay, and

emphasized the need for proper management of the watershed to control sediment and

other nonpoint sources of pollution.

Napa County has been working to resolve some of these problems through local

ordinances such as the Napa County Flood Plain and Riparian Ordinance, and the

County Resource Conservation Regulations. These laws are aimed at reducing

erosion, protecting riparian corridors and controlling stormwater runoff. In addition,

the Regional Board adopted a requirement that all cities within the County prepare a

baseline plan to control urban stormwater runoff. Despite these measures, it became

clear that these problems could not be solved with regulation alone, but would need

the combined will of the County’s residents.

Because the Report identifying soil erosion as one of the most pressing problems, the

Napa County Resource Conservation District took the lead in developing a watershed

3 Napa River Watershed Draft Background Information Report. 1992. San Francisco Bay Regional

Water Quality Control Board.

ORGANIZING YOUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION 4 4-7
Creating Natural Allies - Napa River Owners Manual and Land Stewardship

plan for the Napa River. Soil conservation was not the only concern. Landowners felt

constrained by the imposition of new County regulations. The District recognized this

conflict and understood that “no amount of government funding or regulation can

equal the effects of broad voluntary participation on the part of individuals in the effort

to provide long-term protection to the watershed’s natural resource system.“4 The

District’s preferred approach to solving resource problems was through the concept

of land stewardship -a notion whose motto is “Get Government off your back by

shouldering a little responsibility . ..” The main purpose of the Land Stewardship

program is to instill an ‘ethic’ that induces each landowner to become an ally in

resource conservation management. Land stewardship uses a consensus process to

identify watershed goals and the best course of action to pursue for a voluntary

cooperative program to achieve success among landowners.

Using the land stewardship approach, the District convened two advisory committees,

one focused on technical issues and the other on educational approaches. The

Technical Advisory Committee included such local agencies as the Agricultural

Commissioner, the Farm Bureau, Flood Control and Water Conservation District,

Napa Sanitation District; State and federal agency staff from the Natural Resource

Conservation Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality

Control Board, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Coastal Conservancy,

US Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA; environmental groups; and a number of large and

small vineyardowners. The Educational Advisory Committee included representatives

from several agencies and many of the schools in the area.

Both committees held public forums to identify concerns and actions need to protect

and preserve the natural and community resources of the Napa River watershed in an

economically reasonable manner. The fruit of their efforts is The Napa River

Watershed Owner’s Manual: A Framework for Integrated Resource Management

- which has the goal of maintaining a sustainable river ecosystem for the Napa River

watershed. The community chose nine objectives to achieve their goal:

1. Promote stream stabilization using natural processes

2. Promote contiguous habitat

3. Increase biological diversity

4. Increase migratory and resident fish habitat

5. Coordinate natural resource protection and planning efforts

6. Encourage land stewardship

7. Reduce soil erosion

8. Promote sustainable land use concepts

9. Promote and improve water management

4 The Napa River Watershed Owner’s Manual: A Framework for Integrated Resource Management.

1994. Napa County Resource Conservation District.

4-8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Despite the fact that the technical committee had a strong agricultural presence, these

objectives are surprisingly environmental. This is a testament to the land stewardship

principle that most landowners want to do a responsible job of managing their lands

and that education can accomplish more to promote resource-friendly management

than legislation. The Land Stewardship approach to Watershed Plan Developments

entails the following steps:

✔Identify stakeholders -people or groups with interests in the watershed may

include landowners, government agencies, citizen groups, schools, churches,

trade associations, etc.

✔Identify stakeholder interests -those attitudes that are needed or that can

block the development of a cooperative effort.

✔ Develop goals - a statement that sums up the vision for the watershed.

✔Define objectives to measure progress toward attaining the Goal(s).

✓Describe those tasks necessary to attain the objectives.

✔Establish a monitoring program to measure the progress of the plan.

✔ Implement the plan.

The Napa County Resource Conservation

District offers 2 Day Stewardship Training

Workshops that focus on Natural Resource

Protection and Enhancement. Topics covered

include: Watershed Planning and

Management, Conflict Management, and

Interest-Based Problem Solving.

For more information, contact:

Kathleen Edson,

Napa County Resource Conservation District

1303 Jefferson Street, Suite 5B

Napa, CA 94559 707/252-4188

5 Land Stewardship Watershed Plan Development. 1993. Napa County Resource Conservation

District.

ORGANIZING Y OUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION 4 4-9
I

C. MAKE YOUR PROBLEM AN OPPORTUNITY - ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT AND WATERSHED RESTORATION

During most of the 1990s California’s economy has suffered a serious downturn. Tax

revenues have declined resulting in cutbacks in State and local government programs.

In the midst of such hard times, it might seem that public expenditure on watershed

restoration would be an extravagance. In fact there is much evidence that watershed

restoration is a good investment with the potential to generate returns capable of

recovering the costs and, in some instances, boosting the local economy. When

organizing the community around watershed issues do not overlook the importance of

building partnerships with businesses and local governments. A positive way to create

these alliances is to examine and show the potential economic benefits that can be

derived from the watershed plan and related projects. Where localities and businesses

understand the short- and long-term benefits to be derived from protecting watershed

resources they are more likely to offer both financial and technical support for the

effort.

Assessing Economic Benefits of Watershed Protection

Both the National Park Service and the California Department of Water Resources

have done studies that show that there are economic benefits generated through

resource enhancement and protection. National Park Service studies indicate that real

estate property values increase near greenways, trails and open space, particularly

where there are water-based recreation opportunities.6 Increases in property values

usually result in increased property taxes for local governments, such that these

projects may pay for themselves in a fairly short period of time through the increased

tax increment.

Greenways, trails and river access help support the local economy through tourism

and resident expenditures on recreation. If your watershed provides opportunities for

fishing, hunting, birdwatching, boating or trail-related activities, there is a potential

to promote these activities through watershed planning andenhancement. Recreational

activities can fuel local economies. Spending by birdwatchers contributed a total of

$27 million in wages and business income to California’s economy in 1987; some

2,000 California jobs are supported by birdwatchers. Enhanced resources can attract

more tourism dollars to a local site. The presence of such amenities has marketing

potential. For example, the City of Campbell, California required, as a condition for

development, that the Campbell Inn provide an easement for the Los Gates trail. The

developers realized the marketing potential and not only provided an easement but

6 National Park Service. 1995. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway

Corridors: A Resource Book.

7 Loomis, John and Chris Unkel. 1989. The Economic Contribution of Wildlife Viewers. Outdoor

California.

4-l 0 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
constructed part of the trail, which passes through forests and alongside a stream. The

Inn uses the trail in its promotional brochures and offers rental bicycles for their

guests. Room rates at the Inn, in 1995, were substantially higher than other local

accommodations.

Enhanced natural areas can attract

businesses to a community. In urban

areas access to natural settings,

recreation and open space contribute

to the “quality of life” which is

increasingly cited as an important

factor in corporate and business

locationdecisions. Localgovernments

are becoming aware of the need to

capitalize on previously-neglected

natural areas to attract businesses to

their downtown districts. In the early

197Os, the City of San Luis Obispo

returned San Luis Creek to its original

streambed by opening up culverts, a

process called “daylighting,” and saw

a resurgence in their economy and

tourism. The cities of San Anselmo,

Napa and Mariposa have based

downtown redevelopment around the

restoration of a central city stream* to

serve as an open space and recreation

area for local residents and travelers.

More and more cities are considering

opening up previously “buried”

streams to enhance the livability of

their towns.

The National Park Service’s Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and

Greenway Corridors provides methods of estimating the potential economic benefits

and values of natural areas. The workbook format provides a framework for noneconomists to conduct their own economic analyses for projects. Although trails and

greenways are the focus, the approaches are useful in watershed planning. Copies of

the workbook are available from:

National Park Service

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program

600 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107

l!4!!l

* California Department of Water Resources. 1991. Stream Restoration Program.

ORGANIZING YOUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION 1, 4-l 1
Economic Development and Watershed Restoration

The NOAA Coastal Ocean Program (COP) has also produced an excellent workbook

geared to the non-economist through its “Science for Solutions” series. This publication,

Economic Valuation of Natural Resources -A Handbook for Coastal Resource

Policymakers, contains a series of case studies illustrating economic valuation

principles and outlines methods for applying these techniques to specific resource

situations. This is a valuable reference for documenting the value of coastal resources

and can be obtained through:

NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Office

1315 East West Highway, Sta. 15140

Silver Spring, MD 20910 l 301/ 713-3338 or FAX l 301/ 713-4044

The Department of Water Resources’ study by Streiner and Loomi~~~ specifically

examined the economic effects of stream restoration measures funded by its Urban

Stream Restoration Program (see Chapter 3, page 3-l 8). Using a method taken from

the National Park Service’s Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and

Greenway Corridors that estimates home buyers’ willingness to pay known as the

“hedonic price method, “the authors looked at restoration projects that had implemented

such measures as streambank stabilization, revegetation, flood proofing, and

maintaining fish and wildlife habitats. The study found that bank stabilization

projects can increase the property values of residences adjacent or near the sites by

3 to 11 percent. Projects that included fish habitat enhancement and the development

of an educational trail increased property values by 15 to 16 percent. When bank

stabilization measures are combined with fish habitat improvements the increase was

estimated to be 17 percent. These values do not include any estimates of the reduction

in costs associated with reduced flood damage expenditures which, in some instances,

can be substantial.

Assessing the Economic Benefits of Fisheries

Many of the examples of watershed planning discussed here focus on the goal of

restoring or enhancing fisheries resources. Fish are significant because they act as

sensitive indicators of water quality and are subject to protection under numerous

environmental laws. Fishing contributes considerably to California’s economy both

through commercial catches and sportfishing. Watershed planning undertaken with a

goal of improving fish resources can serve to improve State and local economies.

Although the number of fishing industry jobs has declined steadily from close to

50,000 in 1978 to around 6,000 in 1990, commercial fishing is still a major industry

9 Lipton, Douglas W. and Katharine F. Wellman. June 1995. Economic Valuation of Natural

Resources -- A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policymakers. Decision Analysis Series No. 5.,

NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD.

10 Streiner3Carol and J. Loomis. June 1995. Estimating the Benefits of the Urban Stream Restoration.

4-l 2 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
in California. The wholesale value of the catch in 1992 was over $136 million, with

an estimated retail value of $960 million dollars.11 While over 6,000 Californians are

directly employed in wholesale fish or processing operations, the jobs of many

thousands more are indirectly linked in retail, transportation and equipment industries.

The decline of California’s salmon-fishing industry has been linked largely to the loss

of fish habitat due to dams, agriculture (diversions and grazing) and timber harvesting.

In its 1988 report to the California Legislature and the Fish and Game Commission,

the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout presented

economic analyses that indicated that the restoration of these fish to twice their

depressed 1980s levels would increase business revenues approximately $75 million

per year. Net economic benefits to Californians, from both business and non-market

benefits, were estimated at $150 million annually. Full implementation of the doubling

effort over 15 years would yield $6 billion in net profits - $1 billion in profit to small

businesses. The salmon restoration program, implemented by the Legislature in 1988,

is expected to create 8,000 new jobs in Califomia.12

The Advisory Committee’s13 analyses suggest that where fish population levels are the

lowest, the effort associated with doubling has a higher return on the investment. In

other words, each additional fish added to rivers where fish have declined the most has

a higher incremental value. The value of each fish added, or the restoration return on

investment, is particularly high in streams near urban populations. For example, the

benefit to local businesses alone of increasing the annual catch of steelhead in the

Cannel River would run $50,000 a year according to the Committee’s analysis,

enough to warrant a fish habitat restoration investment of $1 million dollars over a 20-

year period. When you add non-market values (values include recreation, “existence”

and “bequest” values) of improving the Cannel River steelhead catch by that level, the

restoration benefit grows enough to justify a $25 million Cannel River restoration

investment. The Committee’s findings yielded similar fishery restoration benefits for

the Ventura River.

It is clear that restoring fish habitat and the watersheds that

support good habitat not only makes environmental sense

but also makes good business sense.

l1 National Marine Fisheries Service. May 1994. Fisheries of the United States 1993, Current

Fishery Statistic No. 9300.

l2 Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, July, 1988. Restoring the Balance, a report

to the Legislature and the Department of Fish and Game.

l3 Meyer Resources, Inc., April 1988. Benefits from present and future salmon and steelhead

production in California. Davis, CA. A report to the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and

Steelhead Trout.

ORGANIZING YOUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION b 4-l 3
Watershed Restoration and Jobs -

Mendocino watershed Service

Watershed plans, for the most part, focus on water quality improvement and

enhancement of fish or wildlife habitats, but watershed restoration activities can also

serve to improve the local economic picture. When developing your watershed plan

it is important to look not only at natural resources but at the human resources.

Documenting local economic trends can provide insights that will allow you to

dovetail the needs of the human community with those of natural communities.

In areas with unemployment, watershed restoration can provide an avenue for

community economic development through the training and employment of displaced

workers for jobs in environmental restoration. The following example shows how one

coastal community has begun to tackle this problem.

Historically, Point Arena, the town closest to the

Garcia River, has had a resource-dependent economy

relying on timber production, commercial fishing

and sportfishing-based tourism. As these resources

declined, the unemployment rate in Point Arena

climbed, reaching 30 percent by 1993. One of the

recommendations of the Garcia River Watershed

Enhancement Plan (discussed above) was to use

restoration activities identified by the Plan as a

means to provide much-needed employment to local

workers. The Plan recommended that the Point

Arena community form a nonprofit community

economic development corporation whose purpose

would be to train and develop local personnel to

carry out restoration projects.

Craig Bell, a sportfishing guide, sat on the Garcia Watershed Advisory Group and

helped develop the plan for the river. He had firsthand experience with the problems

of unemployment. Bell had worked as a logger. When timber jobs disappeared in the

early 197Os, he turned to commercial fishing for his livelihood. When the commercial

salmon catch quotas were reduced in the 1980s he started Greenwater Guide Service

to take sport fishermen out on north coast rivers. As the number of salmon dwindled

in the early 1990s and sportfishing limits were reduced, he knew that it was time to

find another career.

Bell’s guide service had offered him a unique vantage point; he had seen the problem

of salmon habitat destruction from his guide boat. The idea of working to restore fish

habitat and training others to do so, struck a chord. Where others saw an overwhelming

problem, he saw stream restoration as an opportunity to improve both fish and human

habitats.

4-14 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
The planning process had opened Bell’s eyes to the possibilities of finding grant funds

to pursue this idea. In 1993, the need to retrain displaced workers was an issue that

was faced by the whole Pacific Northwest. The President’s Forest Plan4 for dealing

with the endangered Northern Spotted Owl was forcing National Forests to substantially

reduce the amount of federal timber available for harvest. To address the outcomes

expected from the new policy, the federal government instituted several programs

aimed at retraining displaced forest workers. I5 Bell found out that Mendocino County

was a target area under this program. He won the support of Point Arena city officials

and the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District board of directors for his

grant proposal to form a local community economic development corporation, a

nonprofit organization that would provide job training and organize crews for

restoration work. The proposal was funded by a grant from the U.S. Forest Service’s

Economic Recovery Implementation Program under the National Forest-Dependent

Rural Communities Diversification Act of 1990. The proposal was successful, in

large part, because the watershed plan was already in place.

In 1994, its first year of existence, the Mendocino Watershed Service (MWS) sent 40

people through the Salmonid Restoration Federation’s Salmonid Stream Habitat

Restoration School. By 1995, 16 of the original trainees had found new jobs in

watershed restoration, and 4 had improved their skills for other existing employment.

Mendocino Watershed Service had received almost $180,000 in watershed project

commitments to fund its crews. Trainees not directly employed by MWS had

generated close to $200,000 in funded project proposals in other Mendocino County

watersheds. In addition, MWS had built partnerships with several timber companies

interested in hiring crews to perform riparian planting and stream-bank stabilization

projects on their lands. Recently, Bell and his group have received additional funding

from the Department of Commerce’s Salmon Watersheds and Communities

Revitalization Program to train Mendocino County’s unemployed and displaced

fishermen in fish-habitat improvement, habitat surveying and monitoring. The

Mendocino Watershed Service has quickly become an important job source for

Mendocino County, while, at the same time, providing a means for investment in a

sustainable resource base for the future.

Contact: Craig Bell or Tom Taylor

Mendocino Watershed Service

P. 0. Box 225, Point Arena, CA 95468

l 707/882-l947 l FAX 707/882-l916

l4 President William J. Clinton. 1993. “The Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable

Environment.”

15 The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. 1993.

ORGANIZING Y OUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION b 4-15
I

D. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

In this chapter we have stressed the importance of building partnerships with key

watershed interests and of using economic strategies to convince potential stakeholders

to participate in and support the development of watershed plans and restoration

projects. Public outreach to the local community is the first step in building the kind

of partnerships that are essential to plan development and acceptance. Through

outreach efforts watershed groups can begin to educate the entire community about

their watershed and the things that can be done to improve the services the watershed

provides. The following section outlines the steps needed to undertake an effective

community outreach program; you can find more detailed information on conducting

community meetings in Appendix A. For further insights and tips on outreach and

watershed education, we suggest David Bolling’s excellent book, How To Save A

River, available at most bookstores.16

Opening a Channel of Communication with

Community Interests

Because it would be impractical for everyone in the community to work on the

watershed plan, the most successful planning efforts have used the advisory group

approach to formulate goals, identify “limiting factors” and find solutions to include

in the watershed plan. An advisory group is usually composed of people that represent

different interests in the watershed. For example, business interests such as timber,

mining or tourism; landowners such as dairy farmers or vineyard owners; trade

organizations or producer groups, like commercial fishermen; and user groups such

as sportfishermen or birdwatchers, would constitute major interests. The type of

interests represented depends upon each watershed’s resource use patterns. All of

these interests have a different perspective to offer, and their cooperation or “buy in’

to the plan’s recommendations is key. That is not to say that the larger community

should not participate, but it is critical to have potentially affected interests closely

involved during the planning process. Although it may be more comfortable to work

with those interests that agree with your watershed group, the ultimate success of the

planning effort will depend on your ability to cooperate and work with those interests

that may hold differing viewpoints.

When approaching interests within your community there are two basic principles to

bear in mind:

4 Concerns and problems that are identified early in the process usually can be

resolved but those not brought up until late in the game are much more difficult

to resolve, if they can be resolved at all.

b Establishing early and free communication is key to the successful implementation

of your plan or project.

l6 How To Save A River. 1994. Edited by David M. Bolling. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

4-l 6 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Begin by asking WHO might be interested and start compiling a list of the

following interests:

4 Interests which may be affected in one way or another by the watershed plan or

project activity.

4 Interests which believe they have something at stake - even if you are sure that

the plan will not affect them in any way.

& Interests that may at some later date choose to become involved in the project, for

reasons of their own, even though you and they both know that they will not be

affected by the project.

Then follow up by:

4 Initiating contact with each interest as soon as it shows up on your list - make

sure that your communication has the following elements:

1. Explain what the planning or project is about.

2. Explain why your group is involved in the project, i.e., your group’s

responsibilities in general, and its specific responsibility for this project.

3. Explain how your group is going about developing the project, i.e., what is

your planning process.

4 . Explain how far the project planning has progressed to date and the timeline

for future actions.

5. Invite the interest to express his/her views that might have bearing on the

project. Solicit advice and comments. Stress that you are looking for ways of

accommodating these views.

Follow these guidelines:

4 Initial contact should be a sincere invitation to the interest’s participation as well

as documentation of that invitation.

4 Organizations and agencies should always be contacted in writing.

& Individuals can be contacted in person or by phone, but it is best that both

approaches be used.

& It is most important that the contact open a two-way dialogue. Once the channel

has been opened both ways, then communication can be open.

4 Other means of contacting interests are those that use existing media. Piggybacking your communication onto existing publications, such as newsletters,

bulletins, journals or local newspapers can provide a means to reach more people.

This technique is suggested only as a supplement and runs the risk of informing

only one or a couple of groups.

ORGANIZING YOUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION 4 4-17
I

Education - The “Adopt-A-Watershed” Concept

The planning process itself should have a strong education component so that

watershed planning groups and the interested public can become familiar with the

issues and the language of watershed planning. It is also important to find ways to

inform the broader community of the planning efforts and encourage their participation

in watershed restoration activities. The most effective education programs use

existing delivery mechanisms to get out the message. One of the best places to begin

an education program is in the local schools. Once children are involved in watershed

restoration efforts, they have a very persuasive ability to involve their parents in the

efforts. For example, on Tomki Creek in Mendocino County, one of the tributaries was

severely impacted by erosion from the access road to residences within the sub-basin.

Several attempts were made to get the local road association to improve maintenance

and drainage of the road, but the residents were not very cooperative. The Mendocino

County Resource Conservation District thenbegan working with the local elementary

school to provide educational materials explaining the relationship between soil

erosion, road maintenance, and water quality. The children took up the cause and

badgered their parents until the local road association took action. Road problems

were corrected and the water quality in the nearby stream improved immensely.

In Hayfork, California, resource conflicts in the

watershed had threatened to destroy civic unity (see

Chapter 2, page 2-4). The small community was deeply

divided between those who made their living logging

the surrounding forest and those who relied upon

fishing and tourism. Kim Stokely, a local school teacher,

came up with the idea that the way through this impasse

was to focus on resource-related education of the

community’s children. Kim felt that improved science

education could provide new opportunities for

everyone’s kids, while, at the same time, education that

used the watershed as a classroom had the potential to

instill a sense of stewardship toward the environment

that could assist the entire community. Stokely

developed the “Adopt-A- Watershed” curriculum to be

used in the local Hayfork schools. It was so successful

with the teachers and students alike that word spread to

many other communities.

From one idea in a small community, the Adopt-A-Watershed program now provides

teacher training and science-oriented curriculum for kindergarten through 12th grade.

The curriculum uses a local watershed as an outdoor classroom - a living laboratory

- that allows students at each grade level to undertake field studies, restoration and

community action projects that apply science and natural resource management

concepts.

4-l8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
By 1996, an estimated 22,000 students will be participating in the Adopt-AWatershed program; in the last 4 years over 1,000 teachers in California have been

trained to use the curriculum. The program has the support of the California’s

Departments of Education and Conservation, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Natural

Resource Conservation Service as well as several foundations and trusts.

Students have responded well to science training with this hands-on approach. AdoptA-Watershed classes are currently monitoring streams in Mendocino, Sonoma,

Trinity and other Counties. Children have participated in stream restoration projects

along the Petaluma and Napa Rivers. Every child that participates becomes an

advocate for proper stewardship of the watershed in which the individual lives and

brings that message home to parents and friends. The Adopt-A-Watershed program

has proven to be among the most powerful community organizing tools, while it

provides children a strong science education and outdoor experience.

For more information on instituting the Adopt-A-Watershed Program at your

local school contact:

Kim Stokely , Program Director

Adopt-A-Watershed

Box 356, Hayfork, CA 96041

916/628-5334 l FAX 916/ 628-4212.

Resources

The Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan. 1992. Mendocino County

Resource Conservation District. Prepared by J. Monschke Watershed

Management and William M. Kier Associates for the California Coastal

Conservancy. Contact the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District,

405 Orchard Avenue, Ukiah CA 95482, 707/468-9223.

Tomki Watershed: A Project of Community Concern. 1995. Mendocino

County Resource Conservation District. Copies are available for purchase at

$15.00/copy or rental for $10.00.

The Napa River Watershed Owner’s Manual: A Framework for lntegrated

Resource Management. 1994. Napa County Resource Conservation District.

Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors:

A Resource Book. 1995. National Park Service.

Economic Valuation of Natural Resources - A Handbook for Coastal

Resource Policymakers. June 1995. Lipton, Douglas W. and Katharine F.

Wellman. Decision Analysis Series No. 5. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office,

Silver Spring, MD.

lit

l!lLll

ORGANIZING YOUR COMMUNITY TO WIN COOPERATION 4 4-19
n

b Restoring the Balance, a report to the Legislature and the Department of Fish

l!LQ!!l

and Game. July, 1988. Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout.

b How to Save A River. 1994. Bolling, David, Ed., Island Press, Washington

D.C. 266 pages. $17.00.

4-20 0 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
5 0 Getting It On the Ground -

What Works

A. THE BEST LAID PLANS

Setting Priorities

Planning for the future of an entire watershed can be an overwhelming task.

Watersheds are complex with many interactions between species, including humans,

and the environment. The only way to successfully tackle the job is to focus your

group’s efforts. In planning, this focus is created through a series of deliberate steps:

1) understanding the problem and the related science issues; 2) establishing goals; 3)

agreeing upon objectives to support these goals; 4) exploring management alternatives

and selecting management measures that can achieve the objectives; 5) setting

priorities among the recommended management measures; and 6) adopting an action

plan to implement priority items.

Once stakeholders and the community have agreed upon the goals for restoring a

watershed’s resources through the Advisory Group or Coordinated Resource

Management and Planning (CRMP) process, the next step is to establish objectives

that can support or achieve these goals. For example, if your goal is to increase the

salmon population or prevent further loss of riparian or wetland areas, what levels are

feasible and, more importantly, achievable? Does the data justify a doubling of the fish

population? Is it possible to prevent the loss of all the remaining wetlands or just those

in critical target areas? What are the factors that presently limit the restoration of these

watershed resources? Keep in mind that objectives must be acceptable by all the

stakeholders to be useful to the planning effort.

Adopting realistic objectives helps to clarify the types of additional data that you will

need to collect and provides a direction for selecting management measures and

alternatives. Before your group can decide on specific management measures or

actions, it is crucial to consider a full range of alternatives. Talk to experts from

different disciplines to identify potential management options. When the list of

possible management alternatives has been created, the next step is to select the best

alternatives available to achieve the mutually-agreed-upon objectives. One way to

accomplish this is for the group to hold brainstorming sessions. Use these sessions to

evaluate each alternative for its advantages or disadvantages based on economic,

environmental, social and other factors.

The group then must work to forge consensus on each of the proposed management

alternatives. Those alternatives that are agreed upon become the recommendations to

be included in the plan. This is the core of the planning process and may take several
months to complete. Do not try to rush the process, otherwise, the results will be a plan

that cannot be implemented. Patience, good negotiating skills and the ability to resolve

conflict among the respective watershed interests is key to building a plan that can be

successfully “put on the ground.” ,

l!LQ!l For more information on specific goal setting and negotiation techniques we

recommend:

Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 1981. by

Fisher R. and W. Ury.’

Watershed Management Kit In A Box. Put out by the Conservation

Technology Information Center.

2

B. PLANNING FOR ACTION

When your community has agreed on the measures needed to restore your watershed’s

resources, you will be ready to prioritize these restoration measures into an “action

plan.” An action plan is merely a list of the most important actions the group has

decided to undertake. The action plan should identify who is responsible for carrying

out the actions, the timeframe for completing them and the estimated cost of each

action. Your watershed restoration action plan should make clear to potential funders

how restoration dollars will be spent, to regulators how they can best support your

restoration efforts and to landowners just how restoration can involve them and their

property. The Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan (see discussion in

Chapter 4, page 4-1) is a good model of how these steps-goal-setting, limiting factor

analysis, and treatment “prescriptions”- come together in an action plan. The Garcia

Plan goes on to provide cost estimates for the various restoration measures and

guidance concerning how the program may be funded.

Like so many watershed protection and restoration planning efforts, the Garcia Plan

was born out of controversy - in this case, public concern over applications to

Mendocino County to mine gravel from the stream’s bed and the effects of long term

timber harvesting. Anglers and others were concerned that these resource-extracting

industries on the Garcia had contributed to major problems in the stream system

resulting in salmon habitat deterioration that had been observed in recent decades.

A comprehensive resource management and planning (CRMP) group, called the

Watershed Advisory Group, was formed. This brought all the key stakeholders -

landowners, commercial fishermen, and concerned agencies - together early. In this

1 Fisher R. and W. Ury. 1981. Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Houghton

Mifflin Co. 160 pp.

2 Know Your Watershed/Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC). 1994. Watershed

Management Kit In A Box. CTIC, 1220 Potter Drive, Room 170, W.Lafayette,IN47906-1383.$15.00.

5-2 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
way the stakeholders could work together to create a plan they could all support. There

was early agreement that Garcia River resources could be restored and that the goals

of the Plan should include restoration of salmon habitat, recreational opportunities,

water quality and a stronger program of land “stewardship” in the watershed.

The mainstem Garcia and its several tributary streams were broken into reaches, for

planning purposes, and each reach was evaluated as to its ability to support salmon

and the other desired services. The factors that impair watershed resources in each

reach were mapped and described. Prescriptions for treating these limiting factors

were agreed upon by the Advisory Group and presented in the Plan, along with

preliminary estimates of the cost of these prescriptions. The reaches were then

assigned priorities, based on their role in restoring watershed function, which yielded

a multiyear restoration investment program. Finally, the Advisory Group’s Garcia

River Plan reviews the potential federal, State and local sources of funding for the kind

of restoration and stewardship efforts it recommends and suggests which of these

funding sources hold the greatest promise.

The Garcia Plan, completed in October 1992, has already proved a success by at least

two yardsticks: the Advisory Group has been highly successful in raising funds with

which to implement the Plan; and the basin’s landowners have been strongly

supportive of the Advisory Group’s fund-raising efforts. Since it takes both financial

resources to carry out restoration work and access to where the work must be done,

it would appear the Garcia restoration program possesses the essential elements of

success.

Developing an Action Plan

There are different schools of thought regarding specific approaches for restoring a

damaged watershed system, but most everyone agrees that it is critical to restore the

relationship between the river and the land around it. This relationship is most visible

in the riparian or streamside zone. These riparian corridors also suffer the most

impacts from damming, channelization, logging, erosion or development. Protecting

existing healthy riparian areas should be a priority as these areas can be a foundation

to tie together restoration priorities in the watershed.

Keep in mind that watershed problems tend to be concentrated downstream, but that

the watershed is an interactive system - major problems in the lower reaches often

are caused by a combination of problems in upstream reaches and tributaries. It is

tempting to begin “fixes” on visible downstream problems. Much money has been

wasted in the past treating the lower part of a river without addressing the real cause

of its problems. For example, excessive sediment, loss of fish habitat and unstable

streambanks in the mainstem of a river are often the result of seemingly less compelling

problems in upland creeks. If the problems in smaller streams are not addressed,

treatments implemented on the main part of the river will just be quick fills, temporary

at best, and are likely to be lost during a major storm event.

GETTING IT ON THE GROUND: WHAT WORKS 4 5-3
Developing an Action Plan

n

To develop an Action Plan, begin by listing all the objectives and the associated

management measures that your group has adopted in your plan. For each objective

decide which measures are the most important to achieving your goals. These become

your priorities for action. Using your list of your objectives and the management

measures for each objective, describe the specific actions needed to carry it out.

Identify who can take responsibility for these actions and estimate the cost and time

frame for doing so. The following is excerpted from the Garcia River Action Plan to

show a good technique for action plan development:

Objective Alternative Action Responsible Time Cost

Realign estuary Determine whether Conduct Estuary consultant May 1994-96 $60,000

channel to conform recommendations Feasibility Study; chosen by RCD,

with historic flow are environmentally Hydrobgical WAG and

patterns. and technically Modeling. coastal

feasible. Conservancy.

Reduce limiting North Fork Garcia Armor stream banks RCD and July 1995-96 $88,000

factors of lack of sites within the below Coon Creek. Mendocino

habitat diversity 100-year Flood On selected sites Watershed

and high Plan should be stabilize instream Service or other

temperatures by restored first using sediment terraces local crew.

restoration of upper specific restoration utilizing available

tributaries. measures identified native materials.

in the plan and plan Between North

maps. Fork river miles 0

and 1, stabilize

channel.

Devebp an

effective

monitoring

program.

Establish at least 4 Purchase datalogger FrOG June 1993 $15,000

datalogger sites to

monitor Establish sites Mendo. Co. Aug. 1993

temperature. Water Agency

Collect data FrOG/MCWA Ongoing In-Kind

This chart shows how objectives are related to management measures and translated

into actions that can be targeted for completion. Notice that the upland tributaries are

a restoration priority. Of course, this is only a partial list of the objectives set forth in

the Garcia Plan but it shows generally the way in which an Action Plan is developed.

Including the estimated costs of the projects identified in the Action Plan is key. Having

cost estimates at hand simplifies grant writing and development of funding proposals.

This allows your group to be prepared when funding opportunities arise-often there

is not much time to prepare a proposal.

5-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
C. SMALL Is BEAUTIFUL - STEMPLE CREEK AND

“THE SHRIMP CLUB”

The watershed planning process may certainly be time consuming and sometimes

difficult, but the process can be simple. The concept of improving a watershed and the

environment is a mission that the fourth- and fifth-graders at Brookside School in

Marin County have taken to heart, and in the process have shown the kind of dedication

and organization that adults would be wise to admire. It began in 1993 with a

classroom discussion about the plight of endangered species. Laurette Rogers, the

fourth-grade teacher who began the project recalled, one student asked, “What can be

done to save them?” Rogers contacted the State Department of Education’s Adopt-ASpecies program and the students found out that there was an endangered species right

in their own community - the California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris pacificus), a

11%~inch long crustacean, which survives in only 15 creeks around San Francisco Bay.

The Shrimp Club was born out of this interest.

From that innocent question, the students began educating

themselves about the shrimp and found out that pollution

and destruction of habitat was threatening them with

extinction. The class broke up into committees that

specialized in various aspects of the project and divided the

workload so that each part was doable. All decisions about

the direction the project would take were made by consensus

and that decision mode has continued to the present.

The students began by informing themselves about the shrimp, then took that

knowledge to the broader community through presentations to local ranchers and

vineyard owners, environmentalists, businessmen and politicians - anyone who

could help, in some way, to save the shrimp. They sent out information packages and

press releases and arranged for their project to be featured in magazines, local

newspapers, on the radio and on local and national television. They used innovative

ways to raise money and public awareness by marketing their own Shrimp Club Tshirts, presenting a play, writing a children’s book and stamping a shrimp message on

grocery bags at local supermarkets.

Their Shrimp Information Package was used to win a $32,500 environmental

education award from Anheuser Busch’s “A Pledge and A Promise” program. This

provided the initial funds for beginning creek restoration activities. They began

working with two local ranchers to fence and build cattle bridges on Stemple Creek,

one of the habitats for the shrimp. Additional grants and awards, including $32,000

from the Marin Community Foundation, have allowed the students to continue to work

with other ranchers to restore riparian vegetation along the creek.

GETTING IT ON THE GROUND: WHAT WORKS 4 5-5
To Laurette Rogers and Ruth Hicks, teachers at Brookside School, the Shrimp Project

demonstrated a novel way of teaching that allows students to learn by taking an idea

and running with it. This concept of project-based learning lets the students take

charge of their own learning experience, while the teacher becomes a guide and an

active participant.

The student’s project is putting restoration on the ground and continues to grow. Its

strong success can be judged by the additional ranchers who want assistance in

restoring their streams; the schools and education groups who invite the students to

speak to them; the environmental groups who call upon the students’ expertise, and

the foundations who continue to grant money.

m To find out more about the Shrimp Club or to purchase T-shirts, write to:

A Shrimp Club, Brookside School

46 Green Valley Court, San Anselmo, CA 94960

If you are interested in Project-Based Learning contact:

Laurette Rogers at the Autodesk Foundation

111 Mclnnis Parkway, San Rafael, CA 94903

D. URBAN WATERSHED PLANNING - THE SANTA

MARGARITA WATERSHED

While some watershed restoration efforts may seem easy, most, especially those in

urban areas, are not. In urban settings it can take years for a community to come

together to set even the most basic goals. Generally, the more densely urbanized the

watershed, the more difficult watershed planning becomes. With higher population

concentrations come more potential for resource conflicts and more difficulty in

pulling together a large number of diverse stakeholders to agree on their vision for the

watershed. Most of the watersheds used as examples here are located in northern

California’s more rural areas; only a few occur in urbanized watersheds. By and large,

watershed restoration activities in highly urbanized areas have not progressed as

quickly as those in more rural settings because planning is much more difficult.

Although there are a number of such programs underway, there are relatively few

completed plans for urban watersheds.

One successful approach for dealing with the complexity of urbanized watersheds has

been to focus on smaller sub-basins. The Coyote Creek program (see Chapter 2, page

2- 17) and local groups such as the Shrimp Club and the Friends of San Leandro Creek

have accomplished a great deal working on their small “sub-watersheds” within the

large San Francisco Bay watershed. The theory is that restoring each sub-basin will

eventually result in overall watershed improvement. Starting small allows a local

group to avoid many planning pitfalls, such as overlapping administrative boundaries

(streams can flow through several cities and counties without regard for boundaries),

5-6 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
too many stakeholders or stakeholders with widely divergent views, enormous data

needs, and information complexity regarding the functioning of the watershed. If you

live in an urban area, we recommend this incremental approach which also has the

advantage of encouraging full community involvement. It is much easier to get the

local community excited about improving a stream that is close to home because you

can tap into people’s “sense of place” and neighborhood values.

This is not to say that watershed planning and restoration cannot be done on a large

urbanized scale. Current large watershed planning efforts include the Russian River

watershed near Santa Rosa, the Santa Monica B ay Project in Los Angeles County, and

our example, the Santa Margarita River watershed in northern San Diego and western

Riverside Counties.

The Santa Margarita River watershed encompasses 750 square miles of prime

southern California real estate. Its two major tributaries, Murrieta and Temecula

Creeks, along with numerous smaller streams, flow from the Santa Rosa mountains

27 miles to the Pacific just above the city of Oceanside. The Santa Margarita River

watershed has two faces. The estuary and the lower reach of the river meander through

the huge Camp Pendleton Marine Base. The base’s 136,000 acres, largely in a wild

state, serve as a rare island of biodiversity amidst a sea of human encroachment. Camp

Pendleton acts as a de facto nature preserve providing habitat for some 14 federallylisted endangered or threatened species, along with 87 “proposed” candidates for

listing. The upper watershed is largely private land. Besides spanning two counties,

the Santa Margarita’s upland tributaries flow through numerous towns and new

housing developments. Like so much of southern California, the area is experiencing

spiraling growth; the current population of 67,000 is projected to reach 760,000 by

2010.3

With rapid growth comes conflict between maintaining

natural habitats and beauty and meeting the resource needs

of a burgeoning population. On one hand, the river provides

water and habitat for numerous species of plants, animals

and fish, whose habitats have otherwise been gobbled up by

southern California’s suburban sprawl. On the other, the

river and its tributaries are increasingly relied upon to

provide services such as drinking water, flood storage and

groundwater recharge. Urban development means road

construction, grading, paving, vegetation removal, and

altering of drainage patterns and stream channels. The scale

of these activities in the upper watershed has the potential to

degrade water quality, increase flooding, and damage and

destroy natural habitat throughout the watershed system.

3 The Riverside County Southwest Area Community Plan. Riverside County Transportation and Land

Management Agency.

GETTING IT ON THE GROUND: WHAT WORKS 4 5-7
Urban Watershed Planning - The Santa Margarita Watershed

Here, conflict between public and private wateruses adds additional complexity to the

watershed planning process. The river provides Camp Pendleton with its only source

of drinking water, but water needs in the upper basin threaten that supply. The issue

of who gets the water is a bitter one that began in the 1920s. In the early 1950s Camp

Pendleton, as a downstream user, filed suit in federal court to safeguard its water rights

against possible appropriation by other water users.4 In its 1966 ruling on the case, the

court affirmed an earlier apportionment decision, but declined to adjudicate all the

water rights to the river indicating that a comprehensive survey of the amount of water

apportioned through riparian and appropriated rights had never been conducted. The

federal court did, however, retain jurisdiction over all surface and ground waters that

support the river system. In 1989, with water becoming an increasingly precious

commodity necessary to future growth, the court appointed a Water-master to oversee

its use within the watershed. The Watermaster must approve every withdrawal of

water from the river which is a very cumbersome process for the purveyors. To this

day, the major water users along the river continue to negotiate to find a settlement that

will satisfy their water needs.

Battles over water rights are always difficult for watershed planning. Such conflicts

tend to last for years and sow suspicion and distrust between the warring factions that

is often mirrored in the larger community as people side with one interest or the other.

In the Santa Margarita River the conflict between the federal government and local

development interests over water rights and flood control has been further complicated

by the need to protect endangered species and wetlands under State and federal

environmental mandates. Given the value of the resources at stake, the Santa

Margarita River has attracted a panoply of local, State and federal agencies all with

separate missions and responsibilities. In a recent publication, the National Park

Service described the Santa Margarita situation as follows, “When pressures mount

on the resources in a watershed, many entities become involved . . . When such entities

have diverse (and sometimes divergent) responsibilities and interests within the same

area without the means to coordinate or resolve them, the result is often more

regulation and litigation, sometimes without significant benefits for maintaining the

intended economic or environmental health of the watershed after all.”5

Clearly, the watershed needed an approach that would integrate all of these efforts. In

1992 the Santa Margarita Watershed Management Program was initiated to provide

a process that would involve the agencies and local citizens in planning for the future

of the watershed. Over the last 3 years representatives from over 40 federal, state and

local agencies and citizen groups have met to share their concerns and to hammer out

their goals for the future of the watershed.

4 United Stat . . . . . es v. Fallbrook Public Utility District.

5 Santa Margarita River Watershed: Today’s Management Framework - Participants In Profile.

1995. Prepared by the National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for

the Santa Margarita River Watershed Management Program.

5-8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Although specific goals and objectives have not yet been determined, the program

participants have devised a “mission statement” that relies on a cooperative planning

effort to set common goals "to maintian and restore the ecological integrity of the Santa

Margarita River resource system while providing for appropriate watershed uses and

activities.” The Program seeks to “reduce potential conflicts among diverse projects

such as flood control, sensitive species protection, groundwater recharge and water

supply facilities.”

The actual planning process has not yet begun, but determination and patience are

starting to pay off. The California Coastal Conservancy and EPA recently awarded

$300,000 in grants to be used to develop a watershed plan for the river. Watershed

planning will begin in earnest in 1996 and the final plan should be completed in two

years.

To contact the Santa Margarita River Watershed Management Program call:

Keith Downs

P.O. Box 1409 Iii8

Riverside, CA 92502-l 409 l 909/275-4319

For an excellent survey of the institutional and legal framework of the various

interests associated with the Santa Margarita River Watershed, see the Santa l!LL!!l

Margarita River Watershed: Today’s Management Framework- Participants

In Profile. Available from the National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and

Conservation Assistance Program.

E. LIFE ON THE LOST COAST - WHERE WATERSHED

RESTORATION CAN BE FUN

We introduced you, briefly, to the Mattole River watershed community in Chapter 1

(page l-8). No story about West Coast watershed restoration would be complete,

however, without a look at the Mattole’s creative approach.

California’s policy commitment to watershed restoration began in earnest in the late

1970s when the Legislature first made grant funds available, through the Department

of Fish and Game, to improve fish habitat along north coast salmon streams. The

Mattole River watershed community was among the new program’s watershed

restoration pioneers. The 195,000-acre Mattole River watershed is the principal

hydrologic feature of California’s “Lost Coast,” land so rugged the state’s roadbuilders turned coast Highway 101 inland 30 miles to escape its steep terrain. There

are three villages in Mattole country, Whitethom, Honeydew and Petrolia, and about

2,000 residents tucked into cabins and an occasional white-washed ranch house along

the watershed’s net of largely unimproved roads.

GETTING IT ON THE GROUND: WHAT WORKS 4 5-9
Life on the Lost Coast - Where Watershed Restoration Can Be Fun

The first century of European contact treated the Mattole landscape fairly gently. The

principal land use in those days was livestock grazing. Up to this point the Mattole 

which means “clear water” in the local Indian tongue - continued to live up to its name.

Its waters produced abundant salmon and steelhead.

Advances in tractor technology during World War II set the stage, however, for

intensive logging in the north coast region. Around the village of Honeydew alone,

eight sawmills thrived in the 1950s. The record-setting rains of 1955 washed out the

area’s new logging roads and scoured bare hillsides, reshaping the Mattole almost

overnight. From its headwaters to estuary, the river’s silt load became more than it

could handle. The salmon’s gravel spawning beds, nursery pools andestuarine refuges

were choked with ton upon ton of gluey clay sediment. By the time logging in the area

slowed in the 197Os, the Mattole’s salmon and steelhead populations were reduced to

a handful of survivors.

And this is when the Mattole’s new pioneers, many of them disaffected urban

professionals, began to arrive in search of the rustic joys of Lost Coast living. The new

Lost Coast settlers organized, particularly around the protection of the environment,

and the focus of their organizing soon became the river and its struggling salmon. By

the end of the 1980s the volunteer-based Mattole Restoration Council had assessed the

river’s salmon habitats, surveyed the geologic hazards on the surrounding hillsides,

and outlined the process of restoration in the Council’s 1989 publication Elements of

Recovery. The process would be a long and slow one and so, it seems, the Mattole’s

restoration practioners resolved to lighten their labors with song and dance.

The entertainment provided by these Lost Coast players has become the high point of

the annual workshops and conference of the 3,000-member Salmonid Restoration

Federation. Restoration-related ditties, often parodies of popular songs, sung with

bluesy gusto by “Woody Debris, ” “Thal Wag” and “Detritus,” and the “Holy Mattole

Rock and Rollers” delight the annual conference barbecue crowd. The Mattole

community nearly outdid itself with the introduction of the full-length opera Queen

Salmon in 1991. Premiered at the Ninth Annual Salmonid Restoration Federation

conference in Santa Cruz, this musical comedy captures the West Coast ecosystem

restoration spirit. Queen Salmon continues to play to enthusiastic audiences in

Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, as well as smaller watershed communities up and

down the coast, energizing watershed activists wherever it appears.

Watershed restoration may be difficult, and at times frustrating, but the rewards are

many.

5-l 0 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
GETTING IT ON THE GROUND: WHAT WORKS b 5-11
Resources

Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 1981. Fisher R.

and W. Ury. Houghton Mifflin Co. 160 pp.

Watershed Management Kit In A Box. 1994. Know Your Watershed/

Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), 1220 Potter Drive, Room

170, W. Lafayette, IN 47906-1383. $15.00.

Elements of Recovery. 1989. Mattole Restoration Council, P.O. Box 160,

Petrolia, CA 95558. (707) 629-3514.

Dynamics of Recovery. 1995. Mattole Restoration Council, P.O. Box 160,

Petrolia, CA 95558. (707) 629-3514.

Santa Margarita River Watershed: Today’s Management Framework -

Participants In Profile. 1995. Available from the National Park Service,

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program.

5- l2 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
6 b Networking Directory

m

A LIST OF WATERSHED GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Organization Contact Address Phone

Southern California

Amigos de Bolsa Chica Adrianne Morrison Box 3748, Huntington Beach, 92605 714/897-7003

Ballona Lagoon Marine

Preserve Iylene Weiss Box 9244, Marina del Rey, 90255 310/ 306-5078

Batiquitos Lagoon

Foundation Dolores Welty Box 3103, Carlsbad, 92009 619/942-9897 

Bayfront Conservancy Dr. Neudecker 1000 Gunpowder Pt. Dr., Chula Vista,

Trust 92010 619/422-2473

Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation Box 157, Carlsbad 92008

Cottonwood Creek

Conservancy Mary Renaker P.O. Box 2422, Leucadia, 92024 619/942-1506

Coyote Hills Committee Bob Ward 454 Pinehurst Ct., Fullerton, 92635 / 714/ 525-8038 1

Tracy Gerald Box 2632, Del Mar, 92014 619/ 456-9144

Escondico Cree -- k-- Conservancy Tom Robinson 4030 Manchester Ave., Encinitas, 92024 619/ 753-1409

Fallbrook Land

Conservancy Wallace Tucker P.O. Box 9208 2701, Fallbrook, 8 619/ 28-0889

/ Friends of Ballona

jWetlands Ruth Lansford 6953 Trolley Way, Playa de1 Rey, 90293 310/ 821-7695

Friends of Cattail Cove Jan Vandersloot 2221 E. 16th St., Newport Beach,

92663 714/548-6326

Friends of Famosa Barbara & Jim

Slough Peugh 2776 Nipoma Street, San Diego, 92106 619/2244591 I

Friends of Henrietta Dale Lincoln 20524 Wayne Ave. ,Torrance, 90503 310/ 316-5062

-

Friends of Los Angeles iRiver Martin Schalageler P.O. Box 292134, Los Angeles, 90029 213/223-0585

Friends of Madrona Marsh Box 5078 Torrance, 90510 310/ 326-2774

Friends of Newport Bay Lane Koluvek Box 2001, Newport Beach, 92663
A List of Watershed Groups and Organizations

Organization contact Address Phone

Friends of Northern San 24285 Sunnymead Blvd. #202, Moreno

Jacinto Valley Ann McKibben Valley, 92553 909/ 924-8150

Friends of Santa Margarita

River Box 923, Fallbrook, 92028

Friends of Sycamore

Canyon Pk. Susan Nash Box 1023, Riverside, 92501

Friends of Tecolate

Canyon Shirlie Miller 5643 Tamres Drive, San Diego, 92111 619/291-9308

Friends of the Irvine Coast Fern Pirkle Box 67 1, Corona de1 Mar, 92625 7 14/ 644-5998

Friends of the San

Dieguito River Valley Box 973, Del Mar, 92014

Friends of the Santa Ana Alan & Janet River Remington 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, 92626 714/546-7713

Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy Gary Gorman Box 9261 5903, Huntington Beach, 5 714/ 963-2123

Laguna Canyon Michele 20522 Laguna Canyon Rd #108, Laguna

Conservancy Phillips Beach, 91651

714/ 494 8190

Laguna Canyon Foundation Mary Fegraus Box 4895, Laguna Beach, 91652 714/497-8324

League for Coastal Protection Mel Nutter 200 Oceangate #440, Long Beach, 90802 310/432-8715

Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation Lynne Robinson P.O. Box 866 Cardiff, 92007 619/697-1459

Malibu Creek Project

Morongo Basin Conservation Assn

9770 Sombra Terrace, Shadow Hills, Jim Edmonson 91040 818/ 951-4015

A. Lucas Box 218 , Twentynine Palms, 92277 619/ 367-7743

Newport Conservancy Box 5556, Balboa Island, 92662 714/756-8277

Pamo Valley Conservancy Bob Hartman 1988 Noble St, Lemon Cove, 91945 619/ 462-3162

San Elijo Lagoon

Conservancy Box 230634, Encinitas, 92023 619/ 436-3944

6-2 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Organization Contact I Address I Phone I

San Elijo Lagoon Foundation Box 1001, Solana Beach, 92075

I I

I

Santa Catalina Island

Conservancy Doug Propst Box 1547, Avalon, 90704 213/510-1421

Santa Clarita Org. for Planning

the Env. Box 1182, Canyon Country, 91386

I I

I I 1

Santa Monica Mountains

Conservancy

Ruth Taylor

Kilday

3800 Solstice Canyon #l Malibu ,

90265

Santiago Creek Greenway

Alliance

Howard M.

DeCruyenaere P.O. Box 1402, Orange, 92668

Stop Polluting Our Newport

Tecolate Canyon Citizens

Advisory Committee

Karl Hufbauer Box 102,Balboa Island, 92662

Eloise Battle 5635 Tamres Drive, San Diego,

92111

Central California

310/456-7154

7 14/997-4446

714/756-8277 1

~ 619/278-1617 1

Cal Trout Craig Fusaro 435 El Sueno Road, Santa Barbara, 805/963-8819

93110 Fax 963-0647

Carpinteria Creek Committee Robert Hansen P.O. Box 1128, Carpinteria, 93013 805/ 684-7948

Citizens to Preserve the Ojai Stan Greene,

President P.O. Box 635, Ojai, 93023 805/646-8957

Friends of Black Lake Canyon Bill Denner Box 73, Nipomo, 93444 I I

Friends of Estuary at Morro

Bay

Bill Newman Box 1375, Morro Bay, 93443 805/ 772-8657

Friends of the Santa Margarita

River -- Santa Margarita

Foundation

2980 Los Alisos Drive, Fallbrook,

92928

Friends of the Santa Ynez

River John Bullock 217 South Third Street, Lompoc,

93436 805/ 736-8074

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: WATERSHED GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS 4 6-3
A List of Watershed Groups and Organizations

I I I

Organization Contact Address Phone

Friends of the Ventura

River

Mark Capelli, 63 So. Olive Street, San Buenaventura,

Executive Director 93001 805/643-6074

Kern River Preserve Reed Tollefson P.O. Box 1662, Weldon, 93283 619/ 378-2531

Mission Creek Task

Force

Mono Lake Committee

720 ##C Castillo St, Santa Barbara,

93101

Box 29, Lee Vining, 93541 619/ 647-6386

Morro Bay Project Steve Eabry Dept. of Planning and Building,

County of San Luis Obispo, 93408 805/ 549-5723

San Joaquin Parkway

Conservancy Doug Vogl P.O. Box 14166, Fresno, 93650 209/292-6284

I

I I I

San Luis Obispo County

Land Conservancy John Ashbaugh Box 12206, San Luis Obispo, 93401 805/ 544-9096

Santa Barbara County

Land Trust - Santa Ynez Laura Golino P.O. Box 91830, Santa Barbara, 93190 805/ 966-4520

River Project

Save Grasslands

Wetlands

22759 S. Mercey Springs Rd., Los

Veronica Woodruff Banos, 93635 209/826-5188

Save Our San Juan Bob Ring Box 1838, San Juan Capistrano, 92693 714/494-1813

Stream Consciousness Judy A. Neuhauser 4-H. U.C. Coop. Ext., 2156 Sierra Way,

Ste. C, San Luis Obispo, 93401

805/54- 5943

Urban Creeks Council -

Santa Barbara Chapter

Brian Trautwein 5771 Leeds Lane, Goleta, 93117 805/964-3105

6-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Northern California

Organization Contact Address Phone

Addison Valley

Watershed Assoc. Mary Walsh P.O. Box 92, Philo, 95466

Albion River Protective

Association Mary Pjerrou P.O. Box 661, Albion, 95410

Anderson Valley Land

Trust Connie Best P.O. Box One, Yorkville, 95494 707/ 895-3616

Arcata Creeks Club Nancy Reichard 1465 Chester Ave., Arcata, 95521 707/822- 1666

Butte Environmental

council Tom Leonardi 708 Cherry St., Chico, 95928 916/891-6424

Citizen’s Advocates for

Preservation of St. Box 4442, San Rafael, 94913

Vincent/Silveira

Citizens Coalition to

Save Warner Creek Rob & Joan Nye 27 Kristy Court, Novato, 94947 415/898-9042

Citizens for Alameda’s Barbara

Last Marshlands Schockley 1890 Bockman Rd., San Lorenzo, 94580 5 1 0/ 276-7272

Coast Action Group Alan Levine Box 215, Point Arena, 95468 707/ 884-2484

Coastal Advocates K. Van Velsor 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave. #237A, Los Gatos,

95030 408/395-9116

Coastal Conservation

Committee Flo Ann Norvall Box 930, Mendocino, 95460 707/ 937-4376

Committee for Green Linda 900 High School Way, Mountain View,

Foothills Schild- Jones 94041 5 10/494-6886

Committee to Save the

Mokulumne Bill Jennings 5637 N. Pershing #A2A, Stockton, 95207 209/ 474-3177

Coyote Creek Alliance Dominic

Kovacevic 166 Arroyo Way, San Jose, 95112 408/289- 168 1

Coyote Creek Riparian

Station Mike Rigney P.O. Box 1027, Alviso, 95002 408/262-9204

Cunningham Marsh c/o Kokopelli Farm 1543 Cummingham

Preservation Committee Shepherd Bliss Rd., Sebastopol, 95472 707/829- 8185

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: WATERSHED GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS 4 6-5
A List of Watershed Groups and Organizations

Organization Contact Address Phone

East Bay Citizens for

Creek Restoration John Steere P.O. Box 800, Berkeley, 94701 510/ 849- 1969

EPIC Jama Chapin Box 397, Garberville, 95440 707/923-2931

Federation of Flyfishers

- San Mateo County

Richard Izmirian 2215 Eaton Avenue, San Carlos, 94070 415/592-9595

Friends of Alhambra

Creek Kathy Radke 843 Carquinez Way, Martinez, 94553 510/370-0648

Friends of Cache Creek Frances Looney Box 85, Ramsey, 95679 916/ 796-3521

Friends of Charleston

Slough Philip LaRiviere 453 Tennessee Lane, Palo Alto, 94306 415/ 493-5540

Friends of Creeks in

Urban Settings

Friends of the Esteros

Bev Ortiz

Kathy Tresch

,

1778 Sunnyvale Avenue, Walnut Creek,

94596 510/936-6323

707/762-7952

Friends of Glen Canyon

Park Lucretia Levinger 300 Sussex, San Francisco, 94131 415/775-6200

Friends of Islais Creek Julia Viera 6 Hillview Court, San Francisco, 94124 415/826-5669

Friends of Lobos Creek GGNRA, Fort Mason Bldg 210, San

Francisco, 94123 415/556-1007

Friends of the Russian

River Joan Vilms 707/545-7572

Friends of San Leandro

Creek Rich Richards SanLeandro, 94577 5 10/ 569-9405

,

Friends of Sonoma Creek Maggie Baylis

Friends of the Garcia

River John Hooper

71 Creek Lane, Sonoma, 95476 707/935-3983

P.O. Box 235, Point Arena, 95468 707/882-3086

Friends of the Gualala

River Vivian Green P.O. Box 1543, Gualala, 95445 707/884-4104

I I I I

Friends of Mill Valley

Watershed

Jennifer Fiarillo,

S.F. Estuary Habitat Bdg. 180, Richmond Field Station,

Institute 1301 So. 46th St., Richmond, 94804

Friends of the Navarro Diane Paget P.O. Box 861, Boonville, 95415 707/895-2966

6-6 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Organization I Contact I Address I Phone

Friends of the Roseville

Parkway David Manhart 121 Park Drive, Roseville, 95678 916/331-3360

Friends of San Leandro Creek Rich Richards 5 1 0/469-9405

Friends of the Trinity River I 415/ 389-1300 (

Gualala River Steelhead

Project Gregg Warner

Jacoby Creek Watershed

Protection Assoc. Liz Finger

Klamath Forest Alliance Felice Pace

Klamath River Basin Fisheries Ron Iverson

Task Force

P.O. Box 122, Gualala, 95445

137 Nature Lane, Arcata, 95521

P.O. Box 820, Etna, 96027

P.O. Box 1006, Yreka, 96097

707/ 884-4322

916/ 467-5405

916/842-5763

Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Kin Cordell Box 9547 797, Sebastopol, 3 707/ 823-8810

League to Save Lake Tahoe Rochelle Nason 989 Tahoe Keys Bl. #6, South Lake Tahoe, 96150 916/541-5388

League to Save Sierra Lakes Brad Pearson Box 267, Kirkwood, 95646 209/ 245-4760

Marin Baylands Advocates Box 415, Larkspur, 94977 415/ 456-1438

Marin Conservation League Karen Urquhart 35 Mitchell Bl. #ll,

San Rafael, 94903 415/ 472-6170

Martinez Regional Land Trust Tina Batt Box 2452, Martinez, 94553 5 10/ 370-6127

Mattole Restoration Council Freeman House P.O. Box 160, Petrolia, 95558

Mendocino Environmental

Center Betty Ball 106 W. Standley Street,

Ukiah, 95482 707/ 468-1660

Mendocino Watershed Service Craig Bell P.O. Box 255, Point Arena, 95468 707/ 882-1947

FAX 882-1916

Mission Creek Conservancy Toby Levine 1366 Guerrero Street,

San Francisco, 94110 415/ 657-3052

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: WATERSHED GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS 4 6-7
A List of Watershed Groups and Organizations

Organization contact Address Phone

Napa County Land Trust 800 School St. #D, Napa, 94559 707/252-3270

North Coast

Environmental Center Tim McKay Arcata 707/677-3172

Pacific Forest Trust Laurie Wayburn P.O. Box 858, Booneville, 95415 I I

Pacifica Open Space

Committee

Michael Crabtree City of Pacifica, 170 Santa Maria Avenue,

Pacifca , 94044

415/ 738 7340

Petaluma River Council David Keller Box 750501, Petaluma, 94975 707/ 763-9336

Plumas Corporation Leah Wills P.O. Box 3880, Quincy, 95971 916/283-3739

Protect Our Watershed Gaylene Hurley 5669 Cherry Lane, Paradise, 95969

Putah Creek Council Susan Sanders P.O. Box 743, Davis, 95616 9 16/ 662-2655

Ramona Woods Water

Association Virginia Fordice P.O. Box 628, Boulder Creek, 95006

Redwood Coast

Watersheds Alliance

William G.

Johnson Box 209, Comptche, 95427 707/468-1253

Redwood Community

Action Agency Stephen Madrone 904 G Street, Eureka, 95501 707/ 445-0881

Russian River Unlimited Rebecca Kress P.O. Box 760, Hopland, 95449 707/ 744- 1874

Salmon River Restoration Peter Brucker

council P.O. Box 610, Forks of Salmon, 96031 916/462-4720

Save Our South Bay

Wetlands Ginny Becchine 1046 Wright #l , Mountain View, 94043 415/ 968-4875

Save San Francisco Bay

Assn. Barry Nelson 1736 Franklin St. 3 Fl., 94612 5 10/ 452-9261

Save Wetlands in

Mayhews

Sacramento River

Preservation Trust

Margaret & Dean

Lewis 36102 Spruce St., Newark, 94560 5 10/ 792-8291

John Merz Box 5366, Chico, 95927 916/ 891-6425

Sierra Env. Resource Ctr. John Buckley Box 396, Twain Harte, 95383 209/ 586-7440 1

6-8 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Organization contact

Sierra Nevada Alliance Laurel Ames

Address Phone

Box 9072, South Lake Tahoe, 96158 916/ 542-4546

Smith River Advisory

Council

Smith River Alliance

Jim Walvogel 707/ 464-4711

Larry Moss 707/677-3324

Sonoma Co. Wetlands

Watch

Sonoma Land Trust

Donna Strom 2730 Ash Dr., Santa Rosa, 95407 707/ 526-0820

Richard Charter 908 College Avenue, Santa Rosa, 95404 707/ 526-6930

n

Soquel Creek Watershed

CRMP

Sharon Corkrean,

Santa Cru co. z 3233 Valencia Ave. Suite B-6,

RCD

Aptos, 95003 408/ 685-3602

Streaminders Scott Murphy P.O. Box 305 1, Chico, 95927 916/894-1305

Tomales Bay Assoc. Ken Fox Box 369, Point Reyes Station, 94956 415/ 663-1467 /

Urban Creeks Council 

Roland Hauck Chapter Dave Keller 1327 I Street, Petaluma, 94952 707/763-9335

Urban Creeks Council -

Sacramento Chapter Frank Cruzen 5225 Atlanta, Sacramento, 95841 916/332-3775

Watershed Cary Fargo Box 364, Graton, 95444 707/ 527-0866

Wild in the City Nancy Morita 6 Cypress Road, San Anselmo, 94960

Yolo Basin Foundation Robin Kulakow Box 943, Davis, 95617 /916/ 758-8882 1

Yolo Environmental

Resource Center Nicole Vanoni 132 E Street, Ste. 2-F, Davis, 95616 916/758-9372

Yuba Watershed Institute Don Harkin 21481 Casey Ranch,

Nevada City , 95959

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: WATERSHED GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS 4 6-9
A List of Watershed Groups and Organizations

ORGANIZATIONS

Organization

American River Coalition

Contact Address Phone

Charlie Casey 128 J Street, 2nd Floor,

Sacramento, 958 14 916/ 448-1045

Cal Trout 870 Market St., San Francisco, 94102 415/392-8887

California Nature Conservancy 201 Mission St. 4th Floor,

San Francisco, 94105 415/777-0487

CA Sportfishing Protection

Alliance Box 357, Quincy, 95971 916/283-3767

CA Striped Bass Assn Jay Sorensen Box 9045, Stockton, 95209 209/ 957-1707

Ducks Unlimited Ron Stromstad 9823 Old Winery Pl. #16,

Sacramento, 95827

Environmental Defense Center John Buse 906 Garden Street,

Santa Barbara, 93101

Friends of the River 128 J Street, Sacramento, 95814 / 916/ 753-5579

Institute for Sustainable

Forestry

Golden West Women’s Fly Fishers Annette Thompson

P.O. Box 1580, Redway, 95560 707/ 923-4719

3949 Edenvale Place, Oakland, 94605 5 10/ 569-7763

Golden State Wildlife

Federation

Northcoast Environmental

Center

Ann Riley

Andy Alm

2530 San Pablo Avenue #D, Berkeley, 94702

879 Ninth Street, Arcata, 95521

510/ 848-2211

707/ 822-7237

Northern Califoma Council

Federation of Flyfishers Dave Ford 6705 Plum Tree Court,

Citrus Heights, 95616 916/ 722-2710

Salmonid Restoration Jud

Federation Ellingwood P.O. Box 4260, Arcata, 95521 707/ 444-8903

The Nature Conservancy Steve Johnson 1540 River Park Drive #201,

Sacramento, 95815 916/641-1763

Trout Unlimited Stan Griffin 5200 Huntington Avenue,

Richmond, 94804 510/ 528-5390

United Anglers of California 5200 Huntington Avenue #300,

Richmond, 94804 5 10/ 525-FISH

Urban Creeks Council Carole 1250 Addison Street #7,

Schemmerling Berkeley, 94702 5 10/ 524-4005

Watershed Management c/o Water Resources Ctr., UC -Davis,

Council Davis, 95616

6-10 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Agency Networking

CALIFORNIA’S RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) can and do provide many types of assistance to a

watershed planning effort from aerial photographs to serving as a fiscal agent for grants (see

discussion in Chapter 3, page 3-20). Contact your local RCD for information about

watershed restoration activities in your area.

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD)

c/o Department of Conservation

801 K Street, 13th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Executive Director: Julie Spezia l 9 16/447-7237

California Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Council

2121-C Second Street, Ste 100

Davis, CA 95616-5475 l 9 16/757-8200

District Address Phone #

Area 1 (Northeast CA)

Butte Valley RCD P.O. Box 195, Macdoel, 96058 916/398-4411 1

Central Modoc RCD 1030 N. Main Street, Alturas, 96101 916/233-4137 1

Fall River RCD P.O. Box 551, Fall River Mills, 96028 j 916/336-5115 /

Glenn County RCD 132 N. Enright, Suite B, Willows, 95988 / 916/934-4601 1

Goose Lake RCD 1030 N. Main Street, Alturas, 96101 j 916/233-4137 1

Honey Lake Valley RCD 712-835 Highway 395, Susanville, 96130 916/257-7271 /

Feather River RCD 48228 Hwy 70, Quincy, 95971 j 916/283-2833 1

 Lava Beds RCD 1 1 Route 1 Box 246-AA, Tulelake, 96134 916/667-5268 1

Pit RCD P.O. Box 301, Bieber, 96009 ( 916/294-5394 1

Shasta Valley RCD 215 Executive Court, Ste. A, Yreka, 96097 916/467-3975 I

Sierra Valley RCD P.O. Box 392, Loyalton, 96118 916/994-3464 /

Siskiyou RCD P.O.Box 641, Fort Jones, 96032 / 916/467-3975 1

/ Surprise Valley RCD 1 P.O. Box 777, Cedarville, 96104 916/279-6110 /

1 Tehama County RCD I2 Sutter Street #D, Red Bluff, 96080 916/527-4231 1

Trinity County RCD P.O. Box 1414, Weaverville, 96093 9 16/623-6004

Vina RCD 833 1 Marek, Los Molinos, 96055 916/839-2164

Western Shasta RCD 3179 Bechelli Lane #107, Redding, 96002 916/224-1141

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: AGENCY NETWORKING 4 6-l 1
California’s Resource Conservation Districts

District Address Phone #

Area 2 (North Coast)

Alameda County RCD

Contra Costa County RCD

East Lake RCD

Eel River RCD

Gold Ridge RCD

Marin County RCD

Mendocino County RCD

Napa RCD

Sotoyome-Santa Rosa RCD

So. Sonoma County RCD

West Lake RCD

Area 3 (Central Mtn.)

1560 Catalina Court,

Livermore, 94550 510/447-0749

5552 Clayton Road, Concord, 94521 510/672-6522

2559 Lakeshore Blvd. # 5

Lakeport, 95453 707/263-4180

P.O. Box 66, Ferndale, 95536 707/444-9708

874 Gravenstein Hwy, South, #6,

Sebastopol, 95472 707/823-7471

P.O. Box 219,

Point Reyes Station, 94956

405 Orchard Ave, Ukiah, 95482

1303 Jefferson St., Ste. 500B,

Napa, 94559

777 Sonoma Avenue, Rm 212,

Santa Rosa, 95404

1301 Redwood Avenue, Suite 100,

Petaluma, 94952

7001 Scotts Valley Road,

Lakeport, 95453

415/663-1231

707/468-9223

707/252-4188

707/573-1409

707/794-1242

707/263-4180

Alpine RCD P.O. Box 517, Minden, NV 89423 702/782-3547

Amador RCD 10590 Sunset Drive, Suite 7,

Jackson, 95642

4 15 Placerville Drive #M,

Placerville ,95667

209/223-1846

El Dorado RCD 916/622-1410

Georgetown-Divide RCD 415 Placerville Drive #M,

Placerville, 95667 916/622-1410

Inyo-Mono RCD Route 4, Box 17, Bishop, 93514 / 619/872-6111 /

Mono County RCD P.O. Box 517, Minden, NV 89423 702/782-3547

Nevada County RCD 113 Presley Way #l,

Grass Valley, 95945

251 Auburn Ravine Rd. #201,

Auburn, 95603

P.O. Box 10529,

So. Lake Tahoe, 95731

916/272-3417

Placer County RCD 916/885-3046

Tahoe RCD 916/541-5654

6-12 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
District Address 1 Phone# 1

1 Area 4 (No. Central)

Colusa County RCD 100 Sunrise Blvd. #B, Colusa, 95932 916/458-29 31

Dixon RCD 1170 N. Lincoln, #1 10, Dixon, 95620 916/678-1655

Florin RCD 65 Quinta Court, Suite C,

Sacramento, 95823 916/485-9883

Lower Consumnes RCD 2001 Vesta Way, Sacramento, 95864 916/485-9883

/Salida RCD 218 N. El Circulo, Patterson, 95363 209/892-6193

1 San Joaquin Co. RCD 8577 E. Fairchild Rd., Stockton, 95205 (209/931-2587 1

Sloughhouse RCD 2001 Vesta Way, Sacramento, 95864 916/485-9883

S.T. & J. RCD 10555 Maze Blvd., Modesto. 95351 209/522-7871

1 Stonyford RCD 1 100 Sunrise Blvd., Colusa, 95932 916/458-2931

1 Suisun RCD I P.O. Box 426, Suisun, 94585 707/425-9302 I

 Sutter County RCD / ) 1511B Butte House Rd., Yuba City, 95993 I 916/674-1461 1

1 Ulatis RCD 1170 N. Lincoln 1 , #l 10, Dixon, 95620 916/678-1655 j

West Stanislaus RCD I P.O. Box 573, Patterson, 95363 1 j 209/892-6193

Yolo County RCD P.O. Box 135, Zamora, 95698 916/662-2037

Yuba County RCD 1511B Butte House Rd., Yuba City, 95993 916/674-1461

Area 5 (Central Coast)

I Coastal San Luis RCD I 545 Main Street, #Bl, Morro Bay, 93442 (805/772-4391 I

 Evergreen RCD I

Gabilan-Santa Lucia

 888 N. First Street, #203, San Jose. 95112 I408/288-5888 1

 426 S. Mildred, King City, 93930 408/385-5545

Loma Prieta RCD 8352 Church Street, Suite D,

Gilroy, 95020 408/847-4161

Monterey Coast RCD / 635 Sanbom Place, #7, Salinas, 93901 408/424-1036 1

San Benito RCD 8352 Church Street, Suite D,

Gilroy, 95020 408/636-8029

San Mateo County RCD 785 Main street, #C,

Half Moon Bay, 94019

415/726-4660

I Santa Cruz County RCD ( 3233 Valencia Drive, #B6, Aptos, 95003 I408/688-1562 I

Upper Salinas-Las

Tablas RCD

610 10th Street, Suite B,

Paso Robles, 93446 805/238-0934

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: AGENCY NETWORKING 4 6-13
California’s Resource Conservation Districts

District Address Phone #

Area 6

Antelope Valley RCD 805 W. Avenue J, Lancaster, 93534 805/945-2604 1

Eastern Kern County RCD ( P.O. Box 626, Inyo-Kern, 93527 ( 619/377-5285 (

Lompoc RCD ) P.O. Box 934, Santa Barbara, 93102 805/484-1289 1

Cachuma RCD 624-B W. Foster Road,

Santa Maria, 93455 805/937-6363

Topanga-Los Virgenes RCD 122 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd.,

Topanga, 90290 310/455-1030

Ventura County RCD

Area 7

Coachella Valley RCD

1 P.O. Box 147, Somis, 93066 805/386-4685 I

80-975 Indio Blvd., #B- 11,

Indio, 9220 1 619/342-7658

East Valley RCD

Elsinore-Murrieta- Anza

RCD

Mojave Desert RCD

Palo Verde RCD

Riverside-Corona RCD

San Jacinto Basin RCD San Jacinto, 92383 909/654-7733

Inland Empire RCD

Area 8

25809 B Business Center Drive,

Redlands, 92374 909/799-7407

24280 Washington Avenue,

Murrieta, 92582 909/677-9182

18484 Highway 18, #195,

Apple Valley, 92307

P.O. Box 610, Blythe, 92226

619/242-2906

619/922-3446

Riverside 92507

2816 East 4th Street,

Ontario, 91764-0463 909/987-0622

Bard RCD 1 P.O. Box 776, Bard, 92222 619/572-0179

I

Greater Mountain Empire 1132 N. Second Street,

RCD El Cajon, 92021 619/442-0559

Imperial Irrigation District P.O. Box 937, Imperial, 92251 619/339-9477

Mission RCD 1181 E. Mission, Fallbrook, 92028 619/728-1332

Palomar-Ramona-Julian 332 S. Juniper, #110,

RCD Escondido, 92025 619/745-2061

Upper San Luis Rey RCD 1181 E. Mission, Fallbrook, 92028 619/728-1332

6-14 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
I District Address Phone #

Area 9

Ballico RCD ( P.O. Box 77, Ballico. 95303 209/723-3354

1 Bonita RCD 1 P.O. Box 97, Madera, 93637 209/673-0650 1

1 Buena Vista RCD 1 P.O. Box 756, Buttonwillow, 93206 1805/ 324-1101 1

1 Chowchilla-Red Top RCD I 11791 Avenue 22, Chowchilla, 93610 209/665-3502 1

/ Coarsegold RCD I 425 N. Gateway, Suite F, Madera, 93637 I 209 868-3367 / /

Columbia RCD

East Madera RCD

El Nido RCD

Excelsior/Kings River

615 Monroe Avenue, Los Banos, 93635 209/826-2411

9777 Road 33-l/2, Madera, 93638 209/643-0610

P.O. Box 182, El Nido, 95317 209/722-6450

680 Campus Drive, Suite E, Hanford, 93230 209/584-9209

Firebaugh RCD

j Grassland RCD

P.O. Box 97, Mendota, 93640 209/655-4761

/ 610 W. Pacheco Blvd., Los Banos, 93635 1 209/826-5188 1

1 Gustine-Romero RCD 1 2199 S. Jensen Road. Gustine. 95322 / 209/854-3123 1

James RCD

Kern Valley RCD

La Paloma RCD

Lone Tree RCD

Los Banos RCD

P.O. Box 757, San Joaquin, 93660 209/693-4356

P.O. Box 390, Onyx, 93255 619/ 378-2025

5500 E. S. Bear Creek Dr., Merced, 95340 209/723-3714

5500 E. S. Bear Creek Dr., Merced, 95340 209/722-3079

745 W. J Street, Los Banos, 93635 209/826-5770

Mariposa County RCD P.O. Box 746, Mariposa, 95338 209/966-3431

Navelencia RCD 23168 E. Jensen Avenue, Reedley, 93654 209/639-9330

Panoche RCD 52027 W. Althea Avenue, Firebaugh, 93622 1209/ 364-6136

Pond-Shaftner-Wasco RCD P.O. Box 605, Wasco, 93280 805/861-4129

Poso RCD 39586 W. Valeria, DOS Palos, 93620 209/392-2959

Rosedale-Rio Bravo RCD 3 04 Via Carisma, Bakersfield, 93309 805/861-4129

San Luis RCD 11704 W. Henry Miller Ave.,

D O S Palos, 93620 209/826-5770

1 Sierra RCD

/ Stevinson RCD

I 2999 McKelvy, Clovis, 93612 209/299-4585 /

1 P.O. Box 157, Stevinson, 95374 209/723-3354 1

Tehachapi RCD

Tranquillity RCD

Tulare County RCD

117 S. Mill Street, Suite I, Tehachapi, 93561 805/822-7596

P.O. Box 487, Tranquillity, 93668 209/698-7225

3135 S. Mooney Blvd. #C, Visalia, 93277 209/732-9163

/ Tulare Lake RCD I P.O. Box 985. Corcoran. 93212 209/992-3145 1

Western Kern RCD c/o Antelope Ranch -- General Delivery,

Cholame, 9343 1 805/861-4129

Westside RCD P.O. Box 205, Five Points, 93624 209/227-2489

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: AGENCY NETWORKING 4 6-15
fi STATE AGENCY CONTACTS

California Coastal Commission

Headquarters/North Coast Area Office

45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94105-219

North Coast Area Offke

Steve Scholl

Central Coast Area Office

725 Front Street, Suite 300

Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4508

Les Strnad

South Central Coast Offke

89 South California Street, Suite 200

Ventura, CA 9300 l-280 1

Mark Capelli

South Coast Area Office

P.O. Box 1450

245 West Broadway, Suite 380

Long Beach, CA 90802-4416

Teresa Henry

San Diego Coast Area Office

3 111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92108- 1725

Debora Lee

California Coastal Conservancy

1330 Broadway, Suite 1100

Oakland, CA 94612-2530

Reed Holderman

California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street

Box 944209

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Robert R. Treanor, Executive Director

415/904-5400

FAX 415/904-5200

415/904-5260

408/427-4863

FAX 408/ 427-4877

805/641-0142

FAX 805/ 641-1732

310/ 590-5071

FAX 310/590-5084

619/ 521-8036

FAX 619/521-9672

510/286-1015

FAX 510/286-0470

916/653-4899

California Department of Fish and Game

State Headquarters

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

9 16/ 653-7664

FAX 916/653-1856

John Turner, Chief, Environmental Services 9 16/653-4875

6-16 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Tim Farley, Chief, Inland Fisheries

DFG Home Page:

916/ 653-6194

fh

Internet access @ http://spoc.dfg.ca.gov. -

Natural Diversity Data Base, Marketing Unit

Region 1 - Northern California - North Coast Region

601 Locust Street

Redding, CA 96001

Gary Stacey, Environmental Services

John Hayes, Inland Fisheries

Region 2 - Sacramento Valley - Central Sierra Region

1701 Nimbus Road

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Jerry Mensch, Environmental Services

Patrick O’Brien, Inland Fisheries

Region 3 - Central Coast Region

P.O. Box 47

Yountville, CA 94599

Carl Wilcox, Environmental Services

Kenneth Aasen, Fisheries

Region 4 - San Joaquin Valley - Southern Sierra Region

1234 East S haw Avenue

Fresno, CA 93710

Dale Mitchell, Environmental Services

Jerome Staley, Fisheries

Region 5 - Southern California - Eastern Sierra Region

330 Golden Shore, Suite 50

Long Beach, CA 90802

Bruce Eliason, Environmental Services

Fisheries

916/324-3812

9 16/ 225-2300

FAX 916/225-2381

916/225-2371

916/225-2372

916/355-0978

FAX 916/355-7102

916/ 355-7030

9 16/355-7090

707/944-5500

FAX 707/944-5563

707/944-5525

707/944-5532

209/222-3761

FAX 209/445-6426

209/445-6152

209/222-3761

310/ 590-5132

FAX 310/ 590-5193

310/ 590-5137

310/ 590-5151

California State Water Resources Control Board

Division of Water Quality 9 16/ 657-2390

P.O. Box 100 FAX 9 16/657-2388

901 P street

Sacramento, CA 95812-0100

Internet Access: State Water Board @ http://www swrcb.ca. gov .

Modem Access: 916/657-9722

John Norton 9 16/657-0522

Nonpoint Source Unit 916/ 657-l132

Paul Lillibo, Water Quality Assessment and Planning 916/657-1031

Gwen Starrett, Citizens Monitoring 916/ 657-0518

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: AGENCY NETWORKING b 6-17
State Agency Contacts

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Offices

Region staff contact Address Phone Number

Region l-North Bill Winchester or 5550 Skylane Blvd., Ste A, Santa 707/576-2220 FAX

coast Bob Klamt Rosa, 95403 707/523-0135

Region 2-San Will Bruhns or 2101 Webster Street, Ste. 500, 510/286-1255 FAX

Francisco Bay Tom Mumley Oakland, 94612 510/286-1380

Region 3 - Howard Kolb or 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San 805/549-3147 FAX

Central Coast Paul Jagger Luis Obispo, 9340 l-54 14 805/543-0397

Region 4 - Los

Angeles

Deb Smith 101 Centre Plaza Drive Monterey 213/266-7500 FAX

Park, 91754-2156 213/266-7600

Region 5 Paul Jepperson or Central Valley Jerry Bruns

3443 Routier Road, Sacramento, 916/361-5600 FAX

- Sacramento 95827-3098 916/255-3015

Central Valley Lonnie Wass 3614 East Ashlan Ave., Fresno, 209/445-5116 FAX

-Fresno CA 93726 209/445-5910

Central Valley Dennis Heiman 415 Knollcrest Drive, Redding, 916f224-4845 FAX

-Redding CA 96002 916/224-4857

Region 6 Fred Blatt or P.O. Box 9428, South Lake 916/544-3481 FAX

-Lahontan Ranjit Gill Tahoe, 9573l-2428 916/544-2271

Region 6 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 100, 619/241-6583 FAX

-Victorville Ken Carter Victorville, 92392 619/241-7308

Region 7-

Colorado River Ken Coulter 73-720 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 619/776-8946 FAX

Basin 100 Palm Desert, CA 92260 619/341-6820

Region 8-Santa Wanda Smith 2010 Iowa Avenue, Riverside, CA 909/792-4468 FAX

Ana 92507-2409 909/781-6288

Region 9-San

Greig Peters

9771 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, 619/467-2976 FAX

Diego Suite B, San Diego, 92124 619/571-6972

Department of Water Resources (DWR)

1416 Ninth Street, Rm 150

P.O. Box 942836

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

Division of Local Assistance

1020 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 958 14

916/653-5791

Earl Cummings, Urban Stream Restoration Program Manager 916/327- 1656

Internet @: www.dwr.water.ca.gov

6-18 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
California Department of Conservation

Division of Mines and Geology

Information Office

801 K Street, Sacramento, CA 92182-0511

9 16/324-7380

CALTRANS

Division of Highways

1120 N Street, Room 5450

Sacramento, CA 958 14, General Information: 9 16/ 654-4245

Photogrammetry Branch 916/ 654-5392

State Lands Commission

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South

Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

Jane Mochon Sekelsky, Chief of Land Management

9 16/ 574- 1900

Robert L. Lynch, Asst. Chief, Land Management

916/574-1940

FAX 916/ 574-1945

Internet: sekelsj@slc.ca.gov

916/574-1816

FAX 916/574-1835

Internet: lynchr@slc.cagov

San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Region: David Plummer

Delta Region (Central Valley): Diane R. Jones

Southern California Region: Alan Scott

Rivers, Lakes and North Coast: Linda Fiack

University of California - Cooperative Extension

Area Natural Resource Specialists

Richard B. Standiford, Program Leader

145 Mulford Hall, UCB, Berkeley 94720

Internet: standifo@nature.berkeley.edu

Gregory A. Guisti, Hopland Station

Ag. Ctr./Courthouse, Ukiah 95482

Internet: gaguisti@ucdavis.edu

Neil K. McDougald, Watershed Mgmt. Advisor

328 Madera Ave. Madera 93637

Internet: cemadera@ucdavis.edu

William D. Tietje, San Luis Obispo

2156 Sierra Way, Ste C, San Luis Obispo 93401

Internet: wdtietje@ucdavis.edu

Douglas D. McCreary, Sierra Foothills

8279 Scott Forbes Rd., Browns Valley 95918-9636

Internet: ddmccreary@ucdavis.edu

Thomas A. Scott, Soils & Environ. Sci.

UC Riverside 9252 l-0424

Internet: tomscott@ucrac 1 .ucr.edu

510/643-5428

FAX 5 10/643-5438

707/4634495

FAX 707/463-4477

209/675-7879

FAX 209/675-0639

805/781-5938

FAX 805/781-4316

916/639-2418

FAX 916/639-2419

909/787-5 115

FAX 909/787-3993

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: AGENCY NETWORKING 4 6-19
m REGIONAL CONTACTS

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)

MetroCenter 5 10/464-7900

Eighth and Oak Streets FAX 5 10/464-7970

P.O. Box 2050

Oakland, CA 94604-2050

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)

P.O. Box 809 408/883-3750

Marina, CA 93933 FAX 408/883-3755

Nicolas Papadakis, Executive Director

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)

First Interstate Plaza

401 “B” Street, Suite 800

San Diego, CA 92101

Ms. Janet Fairbanks, Senior Regional Planner 619/595-5300

San Francisco Estuary Habitat Institute

Building 180

Richmond Field Station

1301 South 46th Street 510/ 23 l-9539

Richmond, CA 94804 FAX 510/ 231-9414

Scott Featherson, Citizens Watershed Awareness Program

San Francisco Estuary Project

MetroCenter

Eighth and Oak Streets

P.O. Box 2050

Oakland, CA 94604-2050

5 10/464-7990

FAX 5 10/464-7979

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project

10 1 Centre Plaza Drive

Monterey Park, CA 91754

Catherine Tyrrell

213/266-7515

FAX 213/266-7626

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

818 W. Seventh Street, 12th Floor 213/236-1800

Los Angeles, CA 90017 FAX 213/236-1825

Mark Pisano, Executive Director

6-20 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
FEDERAL AGENCY CONTACTS

Bureau of Land Management

2800 Cottage Way, Room E-2845

Sacramento, CA 95825 916/978-4754

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Sacramento District/Central California/ Nevada

1325 J Street, Room 1444

Sacramento CA 958 14-2922

916/557-5250

FAX 916/557-7943

Art Champ, Chief, Regulatory

Tom Coe, Chief Central CA & Nevada

Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Unit

Jim Monroe, Chief

916/557-5252

916/557-5255

916/557-5266

San Joaquin Valley Unit

Larry Vinzant, Chief 9 16/557-5263

Sacramento Valley Unit

Bob Junell, Chief 916/557-5254

San Francisco District/ Northern California

211 Main Street, Room 802

San Francisco, CA 94 105- 1905

Calvin Fong, Chief, Regulatory

415/744-3036

FAX 415/744-3320

415/744-3036 x 233

Compliance Section (Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Nationwide Permits)

Sharon Moreland, Chief 415/744-33 18 x 232

Permit Section (Section 404 Analysis, Public Interest Review)

John Hendricks, Chief 415/744-3324 x 239

Impact Analysis Section ( EIRs, EIS Management, Mitigation Plan Evaluation)

Lars M. Forsman, Chief 415/744-3322 x 226

Los Angeles District

300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 6062

Los Angeles CA 90012

213/894-5606

Ventura Field Office

2151 Allessandro Drive, Ste 100

Ventura CA 93001

North Coast Section

David Castanon, Chief

805/641-l127

FAX 805/64 l-0230

805/641-3730

San Diego Field Office 619/455-9406

9808 Scranton Road, Suite 430 FAX 619/455-1060

San Diego CA 92121

South Coast Section

Mark Studuraham, Chief 213/894-0437

NETWORKING D IRECTORY : AGENCY N ETWORKING 4 6-21
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941053901

Water Management Division

Watershed Protection Branch, Amy Zimpher, Chief 415/744-1953

Sam Ziegler, Project Officer Nonpoint Source Programs 415/711-1990

Internet @: www.epa.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service - Region 5

California Region

630 Sansome Street, 14th Floor

San Francisco CA 94111 4 15/705-2874

For Aerial photos: 415/705-1826

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS)

(Formerly the Soil Conservation Service)

Western Regional Office

650 Capitol Mall

Sacramento, CA 95814 9 16/498-5284

State Office

2121 C Second Street

Davis, CA 95616

Charles Davis, State Engineer

916/757-8228

916/757-8214

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Northern California Office 916/979-2710

2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1823

Sacramento CA 95825-1846

Joel Medlin, Field Supervisor

Ventura Field Office

2493 Portola Road, Suite B

Ventura CA 93003

Diane Noda, Field Supervisor

805/644 -1766

FAX 805/644-3958

Southern California Office

2730 Loker Avenue West

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Pete Sorensen

619/431-9440

FAX 619/431-9618

619/431-1111

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS)

Earth Science Information Center

Building 3, MS 532

345 Middlefield Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Earth Science Information Center (for aerial photos): 4 15/329-4309

Western Mapping Center (for maps): 415/323-8111

6-22 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

600 Harrison Street, Sute 600

San Francisco, CA 94107-1372

Linda Stonier, River & Trails Conservation Assistance Program 4 15/744-3975

California Rivers Assessment: Internet @ http://ice.ucdavis.edu/ca-rivers-assessment

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

1315 East West Highway, Sta. 15140

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Isobel Sheifer, Coastal Ocean Program

Randy Schneider, National Estuarine Research Reserves

Debra Malek, California Marine Sanctuaries

NOAA - National Marine Fisheries Service

Southwest Region

501 W. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 4200

Long Beach, CA 90802

Jim Lecky, Protected Species Management

777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325

Santa Rosa, CA 95404

James Bybee, Southern Area Environmental Coordinator

U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents

Washington, D.C. 20402

301/ 713-3338

FAX 301/ 713-4044

301/ 713-3132

301/ 713-3141

310/980-4000

310/980-4015

202/783-6235

NETWORKING DIRECTORY: AGENCY NETWORKING 4 6-23
4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Appendix A b Making Meetings Work

Getting People to Participate - Meeting Types

Depending upon what you are trying to accomplish and the nature of your target

stakeholder group decide what type of participation will be most effective to

accomplish your aims. There are several meeting types’ but the most useful for

watershed planning are:

4 Working Meetings: Focus on an agenda of work to be accomplished.

0 “Open Meetings”: Similar to working meetings but with a public audience and

participation.

4 Forums: A meeting designed to air certain issues, to provide education but not

for decision-making.

If you plan on holding meetings, you must first decide the appropriate type. The

fundamental questions to determine the best approach:

4 What is the purpose of the meeting?

4 How can we maximize the chances of accomplishing this purpose?

b What should the agenda be?

Working Meetings

Working Meetings are designed to achieve a specific purpose. You should

design the attendance, agenda and preparation to maximize your chances for

: achieving that purpose. This meeting type is most effective with a technical or :

. interagency group. One reason to have such a meeting is to invite and facilitate a :

: : , free give and take discussion.

No more than 12 people should attend.

. Specific points to be resolved should be spelled out in the agenda.

. . : . All participants should be aware of the agenda items, whether written or oral.

. The meeting should have a chair to maintain focus. . .

 . When the group has conflicts or the participants’ views are soincompatible that

is threatens the group’s work, the group has to focus on finding those areas

. where the participants have something in common. Then they can work at . . expanding this area of agreement. : 

1 Citizen Participation Handbook for Public Officials and Other Professionals Serving the Public.

1986. Institute for Participatory Management and Planning, Laramie, WY.
Open Meetings

Open Meetings are similar to Working Meetings except there is an audience

participating in the meeting. This is the type of meeting that works well with a

community advisory group. In addition to the elements discussed under

Working Meetings, the following elements are important:

. The meeting, including its purpose, and agenda, should be advertised and

announced so that the interests are targeted.

. A completely neutral or disinterested facilitator is advisable if the body

holding the meeting may to party to conflicts.

. Care must be taken that participants do not feel intimidated- everyone must

feel free to actively participate.

Forums

Forums aren’t designed to accomplish some task, to negotiate and issue or

resolve some differences; but to air certain issues, to hear different points of

view, or to educate.

. Use this technique if the issues surrounding a decision or project are not well

understood by the various affected interests.

. Advertise it widely.

. Invite each of the interests to make a presentation.

. Have a disinterested individual who is respected by all participants moderate

the presentations.

. Arrange for media coverage.

. Prepare documentation which includes the expression of the ideas and

captures the value systems of the participants.

A-2 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Using Advisory Committees

Advisory Committees have a great potential to accomplish implementation goals

when used correctly. The biggest problem is they are often used without enough

forethought. In order to use an advisory committee successfully first consider:

4 What do you want to accomplish?

1, How can an Advisory Committee accomplish this?

4 Advisory Committees require a great deal of commitment of time and resources.

& Although the Committee’s advice is advice - you cannot solicit advice and then

ignore it.

4 Advisory Committees have only a two to three year shelf life. After that these

Committees begin to be a hindrance to the project, unless they are reformulated.

Advisory Committees should be designed to depolarize interests and build

consensus. In watershed planning it can be expected that the interests will disagree

about the problem and can be so polarized that they will not accept a solution on its

merits. If this committee is to work then:

4 The committee must be composed of all of the competing interests.

4 The committee’s operating procedures or ground rules have to be such that:

. The interests actually learn to appreciate that there are several different

legitimate points of view.

. The interests are encouragednot to “grand stand” and to further polarize their

positions.

. The representatives of the various interests come to know - if not “like” at

least “respect” - each other.

. The committee finds, focuses on, and builds upon, areas of agreement rather

than focusing on the areas of disagreement.

. There is an opportunity to establish a long-term, on-going working relationship which provides opportunities for compromise.

MAKING MEETINGS WORK 4 A-3
Getting Started - Conducting the first meeting on the project

Getting Started - Conducting the first meeting on the project

When you have identified your purpose; when you have identified the potentially

affected interests and decided what type of meetings will work the best for your

project; you are ready to have a meeting with the interested parties.

Arrange a neutral meeting place, preferably one locatedin the community or with easy

access for the interests that you have targeted.

. Going out to the community sends the message that you are willing to go out

of your way to hear their ideas.

. Holding meetings in a place that is familiar to the community will greatly

increase the potential for participation.

Provide adequate written notice and if possible, coordinate ahead of time, the date,

time and location of the meeting with important interests.

. When setting up your meeting contact a local person for ideas on where and

when to hold it.

. Choose for this initial contact an interest who has shown the most resistance

to the project.

. Follow up written invitations with personal phone calls to the key interests.

Develop an agenda which initially focuses on explaining the purpose of the meetings

and roles for the participants. Second, have a large portion of the agenda dedicated to

finding out the opinions of the participants and their values.

. Focus on finding out the goals of the interests or possible positive outcomes

for the project.

- Second, focus on finding out the perceived obstacles to achieving the goals of

the project or program.

- Encourage positive interaction and discourage further polarization.

. The first meeting should not try to accomplish more than these three things

to begin to help you assess the values of the interests.

A-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Second Meeting

The second meeting should focus on how the ongoing decision-making process should

work and the establishment of procedures, i.e. Ground Rules for achieving the goals

of the process. Some pointers include:

. Let the Committee or group choose their own Chairperson for the meeting.

This Chair should be chosen each meeting.

. Begin with a set of possible Ground Rules to work from, but allow the group

to tailor them to meet their needs.

. Let the group decide whether they want to work on a consensus, majority, or

consent basis for decision-making.

. Be clear about how decisions will be used and by who.

. Take good minutes and distribute them early and regularly.

. Set up a binder or notebook for each member to put information from the

process together.

. Be available to talk before and after meetings.

This is where you get down to the business at hand, but don’t be too stringent about

the need to accomplish everything in a few meetings. Be open to the need for a “blowout” meeting where the participants have an opportunity to throw out alI their gripes

about agencies, each other, the process, etc. Such a meeting can be surprisingly

productive.

Factionalizing

Any group of people meeting together has a natural propensity to form factions and

to gang up on others to increase the probability that their interest is the one that

prevails. In conducting your group be alert to the possibility of this occurring. It is not

possible to stop this natural “affinity” but there are some ways to manage it.

. Strive for balance among the interests in your group.

. Maintain strict objectivity and avoid any show of impartiality.

. If an interest appears to be intimidated by one or more other interests, work

on drawing that person or persons out.

. Suggest a consensus or consent building approach as opposed to majority

rule.

. Recognize and be willing to bring the issue of factionalization out in the open

for discussion.

. Make sure all views are documented.

MAKING MEETINGS WORK 4 A-5
Publishing a Project Newsletter

As a project gets under way there will be a growing list of agencies, individuals and

groups who need to be kept informed about the status and the issues involved. In this

day of desktop publishing, one of the most convenient means for keeping everyone up

to date is to distribute a newsletter on a regular basis.

Assign one person to produce the newsletter. Quarterly publication is probably the

most effective. Develop and maintain a comprehensive mailing list. Keep the

following principles in mind:

Most readers are lay people, not professionals. Without “talking down” to them,

aim the writing to this group.

Don’t use jargon, insiders shoptalk or abbreviations unless it is really clumsy not

to do so, even then be sure to explain these terms.

If the newsletter is to be read, it needs to contain real news - specifically news

that is of interest to the readers. If there is news of interest around that is not

project-related, include it.

Don’t use the newsletter as a propaganda tool - report problems and setbacks

openly.

Keep it objective. If readers detect a slanting of views you will lose them.

Consider using a coupon with which the reader can respond or request additional

information.

Keep the newsletter short (no more than eight pages) and graphic.

The mailing list will probably expand constantly. You will have new readers -

people who hear about the project for the first time - at every stage of the project.

You can do two things for these people:

. Write a special “Introductory Issue” of the Newsletter that is designed to

brief the newcomer. Send it to every individual when he first shows up on

your mailing list. This issue will need updating to keep it current with the

progress of the project.

. As you write each current issue, be aware that some people will be unfamiliar

with the project. Write the issue in such a way that a newcomer can

understand it.

Clean-up your mailing lists regularly, at least once a year. Require that the

newsletter subscriber renew his interest by responding with an “address currency” card. By sending in this card, he will continue to receive the newsletter,

if not then he is dropped from the list.

A-6 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Appendix B: Successful Funding

We have outlined the process for developing a community-based watershed plan. After your

plan is complete and has been reviewed under CEQA, the next step is to begin to implement

plan recommendations, establish monitoring programs and institute public policy changes

as a long term strategy for restoring and protecting your watershed’s resources. All of these

processes require investment of both time and money. Unless your group has a rich

benefactor, grants are a logical source of funding to support your efforts.

There are several grant programs that provide funding for watershed planning and

implementation activities, but in all cases the total amounts available are relatively small and

the competition can be fierce. The purpose of this chapter is to give your group an edge in

competing for grants. The following sections outline grant sources, introduce the basics of

structuring a proposal and offer some tips on writing grant proposals that will get funded.

$A. FUNDING SOURCES ..

Most of the funding programs discussed here are only available to cities, counties,

special districts and nonprofit organizations. A nonprofit organization is a group that has

a federal 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.’ If your group is not an official non-profit, you will

need to find an eligible sponsor or fiscal agent (a nonprofit or public agency) to support your

grant proposal. For ways to include a sponsoring agency in your project, refer to the

discussion below regarding the structuring of grant proposals.

Grant Funding

Programs outlined below are ongoing, but as with any government program, they are subject

to the vagaries of annual budget appropriations. The last few years of government belt

tightening has caused some long-term programs to be “zeroed out” meaning that although

the programs still exist there is no money allocated from state or federal coffers. This guide

only includes those programs that currently have funding or expect to have ongoing funding

well into the future?

California State Coastal Conservancy

Watershed Enhancement Program

The Coastal Conservancy (See chapter 3, page 3- 16) is one of the few agencies that provides

grants to conduct watershed planning in coastal watersheds. The Conservancy draws its

funds from various state bond acts (Propositions 18, 19, 70) and must comply with the

specific authorities of each act. Under their Watershed Enhancement Program, the

Conservancy can provide a maximum of $100,000 for plan preparation. Once a plan has been

completed, additional funds may be available for implementing plan recommendations. A

local match of 25-33% of the total project cost is normally required; this match can be made

up of funds or in-kind services (see discussion below, Structuring a Proposal).

’ For information on forming a nonprofit organization the best reference available is Anthony

Mancuso’s California Non-Profit Corporation Handbook, Sixth Edition. 1994. Nolo Press, 950

Parker Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, 510/ 549-1967.

2 The authors ar e g rateful to Earle Cummings of the Department of Water Resources for his 1994 paper

Money for Creeks: Who has it, How to get it, as a valuable starting point for researching funding

sources.
Grant Funding

$

Unlike most agencies, the Conservancy has no formal application forms, nor does it set dates

for proposal submittal. Proposals are reviewed year round. Selection criteria include: the

significance of the downstream resource and need for watershed enhancement; a greaterthan-local concern for the area; the urgency and cost effectiveness of the project; evidence

of strong cooperation and support of local government and private landowners; provision

for monitoring and long term maintenance of the project; and the ability of the site to serve

as a model project.

If you have a specific project that you would like to see funded, submit a description of the

project, a detailed budget and a discussion of the significance of the affected resource to

Conservancy staff. All Conservancy grants must be approved by the Coastal Conservancy

Board. The staff normally works with local agencies and nonprofits to develop the project

proposal and to gain Board approval.

Further questions should be directed to:

Reed Holderman, Program Manager

State Coastal Conservancy

1330 Broadway, Suite 1100

Oakland, CA 94612 l 510/286-1015

Department of Education

Environmental Education Grant Program

The California Department of Education (CDE) works with the state Resources Agency and

the California Environmental Protection Agency to promote educational opportunities

relating to energy conservation, environmental protection, pollution effects and the use of

natural resources. The purpose of the Environmental Education Grant Program is to assist

kindergarten to twelfth grade students and teachers in achieving “environmental literacy,”

to understand fundamental ecological concepts, and to facilitate responsible action toward

the environment.

The Evironmental Education Grant Program (EEGP) provides four categories of competive

grants: Mini-grants (up to $3,000); Implementation, Site/Facilities, and Networking Grants

(up to $15,000). The Department’s Science and Environmental Education Unit coordinates

the allocation of grant funds to schools and non-profit agencies. Applicants must show proof

of commitment of matching contributions and submit a proposal that convinces the Grant

Review Committee and CDE that the project will continue to benefit the target audience after

the State funds have been expended.

1 . Mini-grants: Grants for projects that implement environmental education programs

and those that promote responsible action projects such as the Adopt-A-Species,

Project Life Lab, Adopt-A-Stream, Adopt-A-Beach, and projects that monitor the

environment.

2 . Implementation Grants: Grants for projects that adapt existing curricula to a local

situation. The program/project must benefit a large percentage of students in

multiple schools or in a district-wide or regional setting. An example would be the

Adopt-A-Watershed Program (see Chapter 4, page 4-18).

B-2 0 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
3 . Site/Facilities Development Grants: Grants for the development of a local site or

facility that will result in more effective environmental instruction for students or

faculty in the school. Examples include construction of a nature center or

interpretive trail.

4 . Networking Grants: Grants for projects that encourage networking between

schools and other agencies, districts and existing state and national networks. An

example would include the opportunity to develop a cohesive group with mutual

goals and shared focus such as participation on a CRMP or watershed advisory

group.

Recommended activities that would be eligible for funding are projects that:

Conduct ecology lessons in natural settings. Experiential

studies to increase understanding of diverse ecosystems.

learning through field

Allow participation in ecologically responsible action projects.

+ Offer lifelong learning about the environment.

Applications for competitive grants are available in the spring and the deadline for

submission of grant proposals is May 31. CDE offers workshops to help applicants develop

grant proposals. For more information contact:

Lisa Miller

California Department of Education

Science and Environmental Education Unit

P.O. Box 944272

72 1 Capitol Mall

Sacramento, CA 94244-2720 l 916/ 657-5374

$

California Department of Fish and Game

Inland Fisheries Grant Program

The Department of Fish and Game provides grants for restoring fisheries and fish habitat

restoration projects. Funds for this program come from a variety of sources, including monies

collected by salmon fishermen on their commercial catch. Annual funding levels are

recommended by the Commercial Salmon Trollers Advisory Committee and the California

Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. Approximately $2 -3 million dollars

are available annually.

The Department issues an annual Request for Proposals (RFP) in February and grant

applications are due in early April. Anyone may apply, but action projects are favored over

studies, assessments or monitoring. Eligible projects include fish rearing or rescuing, fish

habitat enhancement, and public education programs to promote the importance and

understanding of the ecology of salmonids.

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-3
Grant Funding

For more information contact:

$

Department of Fish and Game

Inland Fisheries Division

1416 9th Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Forrest Reynolds l 916/653-4729, or

Harvey Reading l 916/ 654-5628

County Fish and Game Advisory Commissions

Under the State Fish and Game Code (Section 13003) one half of all fines collected for

violations of the code are sent to the county in which the offense was committed. These funds

are to be used for the protection and improvement of fish and wildlife resources or education

regarding these resources in that county. Every county must have some mechanism to

disperse the funds. Most counties have Fish and Game Advisory Commissions that are

responsible for distributing these funds. The amounts available vary from county to county

and from year to year; check with your local county to get specific details about your local

Fish and Game Advisory Commission and the availability of such funds.

For example, Santa Cruz County has a Fish and Game Advisory Commission which

considers applications for grants supported by fine money. The annual amount available

averages about $25,000. The Commission provides up to $3,000 in grants for projects that

involve habitat improvement, research, education, wildlife management, rehabilitation and

law enforcement. Past projects have included fisheries assessment and habitat typing,

support of a local fish hatchery, funding for Native Animal Rescue, slough restoration and

educational material for schools. The Santa Cruz Commission grants are awarded to

individuals, institutions, nonprofits or agencies, and the funding cycles are in August and

February of each year.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)

Urban Forestry Grant Program

The Urban Forestry grant program was created by the California Wildlife, Coastal and Park

Land Conservation Bond Act of 1988 (Proposition 70). The bond measure allocated five

million dollars to be administered over a five to seven year period beginning in 1989.

Approximately $633,000 is available annually for grants.

Cities, counties, districts and non-profit organizations may apply for grants. Eligible

activities include planting trees along streets, in dedicated open space areas, and in public

parking lots and school yards. The maximum grant request is $30,000 per project, and 90%

of the funds must be used for purchasing trees. The remaining 10% can be used for public

awareness and education that will encourage community participation, stewardship, and

additional community tree planting. Grant funds may not be used for salaries or overhead

costs. No matching funds are required, but local match improves the chances for funding.

The Department also wants to work with smaller community groups (PTA’s, homeowners

associations and churches) that may not have organized as a nonprofit corporation. For these

groups, the program offers tree planting grants of up to $5,000 through the nonprofit

organization known as California ReLeaf.

B-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
In addition, CDF administers a federal grant program for local community enhancement

which offers similar groups grants up to $5,000 to create tree boards, newsletters, public

outreach, and workshops on watershed management. This grant program could be used to

support initial planning efforts in developing a watershed plan for the community. The

program requires a one to one match, i.e., each grant dollar received must be matched by

local resources.

The Department normally sends out a Request for Proposals in February. Applications for

all programs must be received by May 1. Applicants selected for funding are notified in July,

and contracts are approved in the fall. Projects must be completed within 12 months of the

award.

To find out more or to get on the RFP mailing list contact:

Eric Oldar

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

2524 Mulberry

Riverside, CA 92501 l 909/ 782-4140 x 6125

Forest Stewardship Program

This program is supported by funds from the U.S. Forest Service’s Local Assistance

Program. The program provides grants to develop forest “stewardship” plans. In addition

to improving forest resources and addressing fire safety, the purpose of stewardship plans

is to identify resources, such as wildlife, fisheries, threatened and endangered species for

improved management. Most recently the focus of the program has changed from

individual landowners to assisting communities develop community-based watershed

plans.

Local government agencies, special districts such as Resource Conservation Districts and

nonprofit orgranizations are eligible for grants. The area addressed by the proposal must be

wildland area outside of the urban zone. Oak woodlands and coastal scrub along with

traditional forest types are eligible areas.

Approximately $15,000 is available per grant. No match is required, but those projects with

local matching funds are treated more favorably in the selection process. The Department

issues a Request for Proposals in February with a proposal deadline of early May. Grant

money must be expended in a 12 month period. For more information contact:

Steve Jones

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

Forest Stewardship Program

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814 l 916/653-9450

California Department of Parks and Recreation

Land and Water Conservation Fund Program

This program is funded by a federal grant from the National Park Service to assist in the

acquisition or development of neighborhood, community or regional parks or facilities

supporting outdoor recreation activities.

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-5
Grant Funding

Eligible applicants include counties, cities, recreation and park districts, and special districts

with public park and recreation areas. The program requires a 50/50 match. The applicant

is expected to finance the entire project and will be reimbursed for half of the costs, up to

the amount of the grant. Announcements of funding availability are mailed to eligible

entities each year in May, and the application deadline is in early October.

Habitat Conservation Fund

This program provides funding for a variety of habitat conservation projects. Eligible

applicants include counties, cities, and districts. Eligible projects are those that protect or

enhance deer or mountain lion habitat, including oak woodlands; habitat for rare and

endangered, threatened and fully protected species; wildlife corridors and urban trails;

wetlands; aquatic habitat for spawning and rearing of anadromous salmonids and trout

species; and riparian areas.

The program requires a 50% match from a non-State agency source. Two million dollars are

available annually. Application announcements are sent in May, and the proposals deadline

is early October. For additional information on either program, contact:

$ Odel King

California Department of Parks and Recreation

Local Assistance Section

1416 Ninth Street, Room 1449-l

P.O. Box 942896

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001

916/ 653-8758 l FAX: 916/653-4510

California Department of Water Resources

Urban Streams Restoration Program

The Department of Water Resources provides grants for local stream restoration projects

through the Urban Stream Restoration Program (see discussion in Chapter 3, page 3-18).

The purpose of the program is to prevent property damage by floods and stream bank erosion

and to restore the natural value of streams.

Local agencies, districts and nonprofit organizations may apply for grants. private entities

or community organizations without tax exempt status must find a nonprofit organization

or local government entity to sponsor the proposal. The program stresses community

participation - any proposal submitted by a local government agency must be co-sponsored

by a local group with interest in the problems or streams to be addressed by the proposal.

Likewise, projects submitted by a nonprofit organization must be co-sponsored by a local

government agency.

The maximum allowable grant is $200,000, but most grants range from $5,000 - $50,000.

Funds can be used to support organizing of volunteer monitoring, stream clean-up or stream

restoration projects.

The application process is deliberately kept simple to encourage small local agencies and

nonprofit organizations to take part in the program. Application forms are available in the

fall, and the application deadline is in midwinter. Grant awards are announced in late spring

B-6 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
or early summer. All applications are reviewed by an interdisciplinary team from the

Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game to select the most competitive projects

for funding. For further information, contact:

Earle Cummings

Department of Water Resources

Urban Streams Restoration Program $

P.O. Box 942836

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 l 916/ 327-l656

The Resources Agency

Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Grants

This grant program provides funding for projects that mitigate eligible transportation

facilities. The state Legislature established the program in 1989 (Section 164.56 of the

Streets and Highways Code) and allocated $10 million annually for ten years beginning in

Fiscal Year 1991-92 through Fiscal Year 2000-01.

Any local, state or federal agency or nonprofit entity may apply for these grants. The

applicant does not have to be a transportation or highway related organization, but must be

able to demonstrate adequate capability and enabling authority to carry out the type of project

proposed. Projects may be sponsored by two or more proponents.

Eligible projects include highway landscaping and urban forestry; acquisition, restoration

or enhancement of resource lands; and acquisition and/or development of roadside

recreational opportunities, including trails and trailheads. The general limit for individual

projects is $250,000 but under unusual circumstances additional funds may be awarded.

Application forms are available in the fall; the proposal deadline is in late November. For

information and applications contact:

Bi I I Borden, Program Coordinator

Resources Agency

1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311

Sacramento, CA 95814

916/ 654-250 6 l FAX: 916/ 653-8402

California State Water Resources Control Board

Water Quality Management Planning Grants

These grants provide funds specifically for planning and assessment activities that address

surface and ground water quality problems. The funds are provided through the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency under Sections 604(b) and 205(j)(2) of the federal Clean

Water Act. State, local and regional agencies are eligible for funding. Private nonprofit

organizations are not eligible.

Funding emphasis is placed on those project that address water bodies identified as

“impaired” in the State’s Water Quality Assessment, and those that foster a comprehensive

watershed management approach to solving water quality problems. These funds can be used

to develop a watershed plan or to conduct assessments as part of an ongoing planning

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-7
Grant Funding

process. Individual grant amounts range from $20,000 to $200,000; a 25% non-federal fund

match on the total project is required. The grant Guide is usually available in spring with

a proposal submittal deadline in early summer. To find out more contact:

Paul Lillebo

Water Quality Planning Program l 916/657-1031

Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant Program

Like the program above, funds for controlling nonpoint source pollution (see Chapter 3, page

3-2) are available through EPA under Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act. These

funds are to be used to implement actions identified in a watershed management plan.

Nonprofit organizations, government agencies, including special districts and educational

institutions, are eligible to receive grants. All projects must have a clearly defined water

quality/beneficial use enhancement goal. Activities can include implementation of Best

Management Practices, technology transfer, groundwater protection, pollution prevention,

citizens monitoring and educational programs. The maximum allowable grant per project

phase is $330,000, and a 40% non-federal fund match of the total project cost is required.

The State Water Resources Control Board sends out a Request for Proposals (RFP) in late

spring or early summer with a proposal deadline in early July. For more information contact:

$ Pablo Guitierrez l 916/657-0793

The address for both programs is:

State Water Resources Control Board

Division of Water Quality

901 P Street

Mail: P.O. Box 100

Sacramento, CA 95801-0100

Private Foundations and Grants -

The Foundation Center Library

More and more private foundations and corporations are adding environmental areas to the

list of causes they support. Listing specific private grant sources, each with their own

requirements, would be beyond the scope of this guide. There are, however, sources which

can greatly assist your group in identifying funding prospects. Probably the best resource for

obtaining information on foundations is the Foundation Center Library in San Francisco.

The Center operates an extensive network of libraries that are open to the public and produces

a number of useful publications for fund seekers and nonprofit organizations.

Some useful Center publications include:

4 The Foundation Directory. A reference guide to major foundations. Listings are

indexed according to fields of interest and geographic area.

4 National Data Book of Foundations: A Comprehensive Guide to Grantmaking

Foundations, 13th edition. 1989. (2 Volumes). Indicates name of foundation, contact

person, and amounts given.

B-8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
b The Foundation Grants Index, 18th edition. 1989. Describes grants given by over 400

foundations.

4 National Directory of Corporate Giving. 1989. Lists more than 1,500 U.S. corporations,

givings patterns and application information.

All of the Center’s publications are available for reference use at Foundation Center

Libraries. Purchasing information may be obtained by calling 800/ 424-9836.

Foundation Libraries in California are located at:

Southern California

Ventura County Community Foundation Volunteer Center of Greater Orange County

Funding and Information Resource Center Nonprofit Management Assistance Center

1355 Del Norte Road

Camarillo, CA 93010

805/988-0196

California Community Foundation

Funding Information Center

606 S. Olive St., Suite 2400

Los Angeles, CA 90014-1526

213/413-4042

Los Angeles Public Library

West Valley Regional Branch Library

19036 Van Owen Street

Reseda, CA 9 1335

818/345-4393

Riverside City & County Public Library

3021 Franklin Ave.

Riverside, CA 92502

714/782-5201

San Diego Community Foundation

Funding Information Center

101 West Broadway, Suite 1120

San Diego, CA 92101

619/239-8815

Los Angeles Public Library

San Pedro Regional Branch

9131 S. Gaffey St.

San Pedro, CA 90731

310/548-7779

1000 E. Santa Ana Blvd.

Santa Ana, CA 92701

714/953- 1655

Santa Barbara Public Library

40 East Anapamu

Santa Barbara, CA 93101-1603

805/962-7653

Santa Monica Public Library

1343 Sixth Street

Santa Monica, CA 90401-1603

213/458-8859

Northern California

Humboldt Area Foundation

P.O. Box 99

Bayside, CA 95524

707/442-2993

Peninsula Community Foundation

Funding Information Library

1700 S. El Camino Real

San Mateo, CA 94402-3049

415/358-9392

Oakland Community Fund

Nonprofit Resource Center

1203 Preservation Pkwy., Suite 100

Oakland, CA 94612

510/ 834-1010

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-9
Private Foundations and Grants

Grant & Resource Center of Northern

California

Building C, Suite A

2280 Benton Drive

Redding, CA 96003

916/ 244-1219

Nonprofit Resource Center

Sacramento Public Library

828 I Street, 2nd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

916/264-2772

Sonoma County Library

3rd & E streets

Santa Rosa, CA 95404

707/545-0831

Seaside Branch Library

550 Harcourt St.

Seaside, CA 93955

408/899-8131

Nonprofit Development Center Library

1922 The Alameda, Suite 212

San Jose, CA 95126

408/248-9505

For those unable to visit a library in person, Foundation Center databases can be accessed

on-line through DIALOG (415/ 858-2700).

The Center’s Internet address is: http:\\fdncenter.org

For more information regarding The Foundation Center Library contact:

$ The Foundation Center

312 Sutter Street

San Francisco, CA 94108 l 415/ 397-0902

Loans - The State Revolving Fund (SRF)

The last five years has seen a steadily growing interest in watershed planning and restoration.

This interest has meant increasing competition for the relatively few grant dollars available

for planning and implementation of watershed activities. This situation has been exacerbated

by budget cutting fervor at the state and federal level. The question of how to fund

community-based watershed restoration efforts is becoming more difficult to address - as

grant sources continue to dry up, it is time to look at new ways of funding restoration work.

There is one funding source that has yet to be fully explored by watershed activists in

California- the State Revolving Fund (SRF). The State Revolving Fund is a revolving loan

program established by the federal Clean Water Act3 to replace the Construction Grants

Program. In lieu of grants for specific wastewater construction projects (sewer treatment

plants), the federal government contributed funds to the states to set up a loan program. In

California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB, see Chapter 3, page 3-2)

administers the revolving fund and makes this money available through loans to local

agencies for use in particular projects. The loans must be repaid to the Fund. Repaid loan

money can then be reused by the SRF to provide further assistance on future projects.

3 Clean Water Act, Title VI - State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds, $0 601-607.

B-l0 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Besides the major difference of being a loan program instead of a grant program, the SRF

is also different in that it allows loan funds to be used to provide assistance to implement

watershed plans under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (see discussion of Section 3 19

grants). This means that loan funds may be used for the same types of activities that would

be eligible for Section 319 grants. In addition, the Fund may be used to finance the

development of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for estuaries and to

fund implementation actions associated with an estuary management plan4 California’s

State Revolving Fund enabling authority allows for this “expanded use” of Fund monies.

This program offers one of the best avenues for funding of watershed implementation

efforts. Despite the complexities involved with setting up the program in a community, the

Fund deserves some attention by watershed activists. The following discussion provides

some insights into Fund requirements with the intention of arming activists with information

that can be used to persuade local authorities of the need to consider this program as a funding

source for future efforts.

The Fund is a loan program. Although, the interest rates may be well below market, just like

your mortgage or credit cards the money must be repaid in a specified time. In order to qualify

for a receipt of an SRF loan, a city or other local entity must identify a “dedicated repayment

source”. In these shaky financial times this may sound like a difficult proposition. The

common practice for municipal bonds or other local capital improvement projects is to have

the users pay for the project through user fees. For instance, maintenance and improvements

of sewer lines is normally paid for by residential and commerical users through a monthly

use fee or annual assessment that is billed to the property owner. Municipalities may be wary

of instituting fees fearing tax payer backlash, but our experience has shown that people can

be quite willing to pay a few extra dollars to support something that is considered truly

important to the local quality of life.

The problem of dedicated repayment can be complicated by the fact that watershed

restoration activities may have no clear identifiable “users”or “benefactors” from which the

loan repayment can be generated. The question is, how do you charge people in a watershed

for an improved wetland or increased fish production? Under Fund regulations the dedicated

revenue source does not need to be generated by the activity to which the loan is provided.

This means that the loan can be repaid by revenues from other sources. Some examples are

lease of equipment, special fees and taxes on sales of gasoline, cigarettes, land, pesticides

and fertilizers, water or utility use. Money can be generated by real estate transfer fees, permit

applications, registrations, or developer assessments.

Finally, a city or county might consider using a portion of its general tax receipts to repay

the loan. Another example would be the creation of a special assessment district which would

have the power to levy an assessment on parcels within the district. This is a common way

for services to be funded, for instance mosquito abatement districts located throughout the

state for the purpose of preventing mosquito-borne diseases are funded through this

mechanism. Most of these districts are county-wide and the cost to local property owners

seldom exceeds more than twenty dollars annually. Creation of a watershed-wide assessment

4 Funding of Expanded Uses Activities by State Revolving Fund Programs. August 1990. U.S. EPA,

Office of Water. Washington DC. #EPA 430/09-90-006.

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING b B-11
Loans - The State Revolving Fund

district for the purpose of watershed improvement would not only be capable of generating

a loan repayment stream, but would have the advantage of continuing to generate funds for

future maintenance and small project expenditures after the loan has been paid off.

The possibilities for the use of the loan program are inexhaustible, but, to date, only a few

communities have taken advantage of these funds for nonpoint source activities. In

California, most of these nonpoint source-related Fund projects involve more traditional

capital outlay programs such as stormwater improvements (Cities of Fresno and Stockton).

But the City of Davis has used the Fund to implement a program designed to reduce pollution

to riparian areas through implementation of Best Management Practices. Repayment will

be made through sewage fees. Two Central Valley irrigation districts (Broadview and

Firebaugh Canal Water Districts) have borrowed Fund money to institute a program for

farmers to purchase irrigation equipment that will reduce polluting subsurface flows.

Farmers lease the equipment and leasing fees are used to repay the fund .5 In the latest funding

cycle (federal Fiscal Year 1996), however, the City of South Lake Tahoe submitted a loan

request for money to support an erosion control project.

Why should watershed groups be interested in the loan fund? The answer is simple - it has

the largest amount of money available of any program in the state. The federal government

is adding $269 million dollars to California’s State Revolving Fund this year (FFY 1995-

96), in addition to loan repayments and interest earnings of $47 million dollars, all available

for loans. Despite the fact that watershed implementation activities will need to chart new

ground in accessing the Fund, it is the only program with funding prospects virtually

guaranteed well into the future. To find out more about the State Revolving Fund contact:

Bill Campbell

State Water Resources Control Board

Division of Water Quality

P.0. Box 944213

Sacramento, CA 94244

916/ 657-1043 l FAX 916/ 657-2388

B. WRITING GRANTS THAT GET FUNDED

The ability to produce grant proposals that get funded may be an innate gift to a good grant

writer, but the skills of grant writing can be readily cultivated with a bit of effort. There are

a few important principles that, once learned, can be employed to turn your ideas into

fundable projects. The following section outlines these principles and offers explanations of

approaches for developing key elements in a grant proposal.

What is a grant proposal? A grant proposal serves four main functions: 1) It identifies a

program plan or work plan; 2) it requests something from the grantor; 3) it is a promise to

undertake specific tasks; and 4) it as an instrument of persuasion.6 A good grant proposal

contains all of these elements presented in a cohesive manner.

5 Funding NPS Projects Through the State Revolving Fund Program: Experiences and Opportunities.

July 1994. U.S. EPA presentation at The Challenge of Watershed Protection Conference, July 26-28,

1994.

6 Getting A Grant in the 1990s. 1982. Robert Lefferts. Prentis Hall Press, New York, N.Y.

B-l2 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Developing a Program or Work Plan

In order to obtain grant funds you must be able to tell the granting organization what it is

you want to do in a step-by-step fashion. The work plan is your guideline for the tasks you

want to accomplish and it indicates to funders your organization’s ability to plan and

organize the project for which funds are requested. If your group is requesting funds to

develop a watershed plan, then you need to know what tasks are involved in developing that

plan. Completing the initial checklist outlined in Chapter 3 (see E. Agency Assistance, page

3-24) can help clarify the direction of the planning effort. If your grant request involves a

specific project, you must understand the specific tasks needed to complete the project.

The work plan must have a purpose or goal, and objectives that relate to fulfilling that

purpose. The purpose of the project is usually a general statement set forth in a few sentences.

This is another good reason for developing an action plan (see Chapter 5, Planning for

Action, page 5-2). Use the goals and objectives identified in your Action Plan in the grant

request for funds to support a specific project.

Make sure that your purpose is consistent with those of the granting organization. This

is why the purpose for each of the grant programs outlined above is made clear. For example,

if you are requesting grant funding from the State Water Resources Control Board (see

discussion above) then one of the main goals of the grant must be to “improve water quality

or enhance a beneficial use.”

Set objectives that are obtainable and that are related both to the purpose and the tasks in

the proposal. Objectives essentially outline briefly what the tasks should accomplish. The

following is an example of language from a recently funded grant that accomplishes this:

Example: Identifying Proposal Objectives

The objective of this project is to develop a watershed plan for the Sonoma Creek

Watershed. The plan’s goals would be to maintain and improve water quality as

well as to enhance aquatic fish and wildlife resources in the watershed. Existing

information is available regarding the condition of the watershed, and specific

Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been developed for the agricultural

practices in the valley. The main objective of this project is to gather and compile

this information into a plan that would identify specific treatment priorities and

target BMP implementation.

The development of the Sonoma Creek Enhancement Plan involves three major

elements: 1) technical data compilation, 2) public participation /outreach, and 3)

preparation for the plan implementation phase, including treatment

recommendations and CEQA documentation. The public involvement aspect of the

work plan recognizes that successful implementation of the plan depends upon the

support of local landowners and the interested community. To ensure that these

parties are actively involved in the Plan development and concur with the Plan

recommendations, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of landowners,

environmental groups, school districts and representatives from interested local,

state and federal agencies, will be convened to advise on the Plan formation.

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-l 3
Writing Grants that Get Funded

I

When you have established your objectives, the tasks for the work plan will be clear. Work

plan tasks should indicate what will be done and how it will be done. The task section

indicates to funders how familiar the requester is with the work that is proposed. Before you

develop a work plan, talk to others that have done similiar projects and find out the steps that

were involved in the project. A sample work plan for a watershed restoration project is shown

below:

Work Plan Example

The proposed project entails the following tasks. A contractor will perform the

tasks and will provide equipment, labor, tools and materials. The grantee will

be responsible for securing landowner concurrence, design and engineering,

permits, project management.

Task 1. Secure landowner concurrence and conduct project design and

survey. Conduct engineering surveys of site for design purposes.

Task 2. Develop design alternatives and obtain permits. Section404 COE,

and DFG section 1603 permits and a section 401 certification are

required and will be obtained for the project.

Task 3. Install permanent photo reference points along a transect of the

project to provide before-treatment documentation of the site.

Task 4. Develop bid package for construction activities. Develop subcontract

documents and obtain necessary reviews and approvals from project

sponsors before execution.

Task 5. Construction: Install treatments requiring construction according

to permits.

Task 6. Planting: Install willow and rip-rap siltation baffles along both

banks, secured to rock revetments.

Task 7. Final stabilization: Complete alI remaining construction activities

during second season.

Task 8. Take “after” treatment photographs at all permanent reference

points.

Task 9. Final Completion Report, submit to project sponsors by a specified

date.

Task 10. Administration: Perform all administrative functions related to

project: accounting, invoices, etc.

B-14 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Making the Request from the Grantor

A grant proposal is a request for money to support a project. This means that you have to

be able to estimate the costs of the tasks you plan to undertake and develop a budget for the

project. This is often the most difficult aspect of writing the proposal and requires careful

consideration. The budget is the core of any proposal. The estimated costs must be realistic

and justified. Funders look carefully at the proposal budget, so correct budget presentation

is critical to getting a project funded. Many agencies supply a format for budget presentation.

To be responsive to that agency it is important to follow that format. If you are not clear about

how the specific budget items should be presented, ask the organization to explain their

procedures. The more that you can find out about an organization’s rules and procedures

regarding grant budgets, the better you will be able to compete.

The most important principle in preparing a budget is that any costs included must

correspond to the narrative description and the tasks contained in the project. In other words,

do not include expenses for activities or items that are not described in your work plan. Grant

budgets include expenses or costs, income (where applicable) and in-kind contribution

categories.

Expenses

Expenses are normally broken down into several types: personnel, direct and indirect

expenses. Not every category is used in every grant. Categories are used as a way to group

expenses into a budget that describes the particular project. See the sample budget on the

following page.

4 Personnel expenses: are usually broken out into two different types of costs: 1) wages

or salaries paid to staff, and 2) fringe benefits associated with employees.

4 Direct expenses: are the nonpersonnel costs of performing the project. These include

contracted services, travel, per diem, office supplies, equipment, rent, telephone,

construction supplies and any other item needed to support the project. These expenses

may be separated out into administrative costs and project costs.

4 Indirect expenses: this refers to costs charged by the larger agency within which the

project is performed. If the proposed project is not part of a larger operation then it is

not used. If you are working with a city or local agency as a co-sponsor be sure to ask

whether they charge an indirect cost rate for accepting grants.

In-kind contributions or match

Many public agency funders require that the applying organization share a part of the cost

of the project or provide a “match” to the dollars provided. The match requirement can be

met in two ways - through actual cash contributions or through “in-kind” or donated

services of some sort. For an organization with lots of volunteers an in-kind match should

be no problem - the match can be made up of the value of the volunteers’ time. Your

organization will need to track this time using simple time-sheet forms. A simple time

accounting system can pay off in real project dollars. Another way to provide in-kind match

is through commitments of agency staff time. For example, if a the local water district has

a staff that conducts ongoing water quality monitoring, the cost of that staff time can be

counted as a match as long as it relates to the project. As a general rule anything of value

that contributes to the project can be used as a match including donations of supplies,

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-l 5
Writing Grants that Get Funded

I

materials and equipment and equipment time. The most important rule is that the value

of the match be documented. Once your group gets in the habit of tracking the many things

that the community can provide, their value can be surprisingly large.

Another way to meet the match requirement is through a cash contribution that comes in the

form of another grant. This is known as“leveraging” grant dollars. For example, a

Department of Fish and Game grant to implement a restoration project as part of an action

plan can serve as the match amount for another project in the watershed. Or a project can

be funded by two diffent grants each using the other as a match. Although this is more tricky

in terms of the timing because the match money must come within the project period or time

frame of the grant contract. In our experience, the length of time between the award of a grant

and the issuance of the grant contract (when the money actually becomes available) allows

for additional grant applications to be made. If you have been awarded a grant, then use this

fact when applying for other grants in order to leverage additional funds.

Income

Most watershed proposals do not have an income source. Unless your organization will be

charging some sort of fee to participate in the project, this budget category is not applicable.

Budget preparation

When preparing your budget make sure that the items are clear to the funder. Always attach

budget explanation notes to clarify anything that may not be readily apparent. The following

is an example of an expense budget for a stream restoration project:

Sample Project Budget

Budget Category (2 years total) Total Budget Match Share Grant Share . . . :

A. Personnel Services: . . . :

.:

Salaries and Wages $60,880 *l $20,000 *2 $40, 880 ;j . ...;

Benefits (27%) $15,120 $15,120 ,:

Indirect Charges (overhead) $ 4,000 ,

Subtotal A: $80,000 $24,000 $56,000 

B. Operating Expenses: . . . :

Travel $1,000 $1000 . ,

Equipment (van lease/purchase)3 $ 8,000 $8000 : .‘.,.r ‘i‘ , +c >,: y )....)

Other (photo/monitoring costs) $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 .:,,y ::: :::,.+ .,., .,. . . . .

Subtotal B: $11,000 $ 1,000 $1 0,000 ‘ : .:..::I.

. . ..A: : . . ?‘, .::v I.,.::,. i::;: ; . . J , ?..::.

C. Professional and Consultant $31,000 \ ,,. . .‘C : ..,

Services:

. . . ~. A‘

.“.\‘. ::.. ..: ::; :~. . .

$15,000 *4 $16,000 .. ‘1. : ; .,

. .

$31,000 $15,000 $16,000 j: “:;,:, “ , \...’,:: :

D. Construction Expenses: $22,000 $18,000 *5 $ 5,000 ” ,‘!j

$22,000 $18,000 $ 5,000 1,. ,,:,:. ‘ ; :

: :: ,.,..e ‘. . . .‘..

Total Budget (A+B+C+D):

.,: .,. $145,000 $58,000 $87,000 .,:.i..‘,.

B-1 6 & WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Sample Budget Explanation: Costs are for two year life of the project. For more detailed discussion

please see the attached proposal.

l Personnel expenses will be used to provide partial salary to San Mateo County for oversight of

conservation crews for two years.

z The remainder of County salary and estimated value of labor for conservation crews at $5.OO/hour

will be the major match source.

3 Equipment purchase of one chainsaw at approximately $250.00. Equipment lease of large passenger

van to transport crews to the site.

4 Advisory, permit assistance and oversight services provided by agencies involved with the CRMP.

5 Construction materials and much of the heavy equipment needed will be provided by the landowners

and associated agencies.

Functional or task-related budgets

Some funders or grant programs require that the budget be broken out on a function or task

basis as opposed to line item expenses. This type of budget is also important to understanding

the relative costs of each of the tasks that are proposed. A task-based budget is constructed

by estimating the cost of each task in the proposal, including administrative costs. A taskrelated budget has cost items arrayed by the actual work to be performed. For example, the

following is a task budget for a watershed planning grant:

Sample Task Budget Summary

Task Product Month due Total Amount Contract

1 Quarterly Reports, 8 reports 3,6,9,12, $24,000 $16500 $7,500

15,18,21

1.2 Contract pre1 $ 1,000 $1,000

2 1 TAC Meetings, 7 meetings 3,6,9,12, $22500 $8,000 $14,500

15,18,20

2.2

2 3

Newsletter 6 newsletters @ 2,5,8,10, $4,800 $4,800

$800 each 14,19

Public meetings Plan & 2 2 $5,500 $4,500 $1,000

CEQA

3.1,3.3 summary of information 1 0 $13,000 $7,000 $6,000

3.2 Maps 1 1 $12000 $9,000 $3,000

3.4 Preliminary recommendations 1 6 $11,000 $11,000

3 5 BMPs 1 5 $6,000 $ 6,000

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-1 7
Whichever the format, begin developing your project budget by defining the line item

expense budget. Then look at the major functions of the project, administration, planning,

construction, etc. Estimate which portion of each of the line item belongs in each functional

category. For example, a staff person mat gets paid $30,000/year and will be working half

the time on administration and half on plan preparation would have $15,000 in administrative

tasks (Quarterly reporting, etc.) and the remaining split into the various task items for which

that person is responsible. Add up the amounts allocated in each category. Reconfigure the

budget to show the amounts allocated for each task. Include budget explanations, where

needed, to describe how the total for the category was reached.

Persuasion - the Problem Statement

Your proposal will most likely be competing with many others for funding. Somehow you

must be able to persuade funding organizations to select yours from the many. The best way

to accomplish this is to submit a well-written, well thought out proposal. It also helps to

understand the interests and mission of the funding organization to whom you are applying.

Emphasize areas in the proposal to fit the application or proposal request, but be direct and

straightforward in describing the proposed activities. Avoid rhetoric and inflammatory

statements. Spend time honing your problem statement so that it is compelling and strikes

a chord with the granting agency or organization. Describe your vision for the watershed or

watershed project in illustrative terms.

The is no one way to begin a proposal. Some grant writers begin with the budget. Others start

with the problem statement or work plan, but all begin with an idea. The best way to begin

is to take the idea, research possible funders, and sit down and write. Be prepared to revise

the proposal several times. Even the most experienced grant writers will tell you that success

lies in the revision process. Remember if you do not get the first proposal funded, keep trying.

C. STRUCTURING THE PROPOSAL

Different funding organizations have different formats for submitting grant proposals. You

should always follow, closely, the structure requested by the organization to which you are

applying. Often private foundations do not have application forms so you must structure your

proposal on your own. There are some basic elements that are common to grant proposals

that should be used when submitting proposals that do not have an application format. These

elements include:

4 A cover letter or letter of transmittal.

The letter should be on organization letterhead and indicate the contact person for the

project, a brief description of the goals, objectives and summary of the proposal. A brief

explanation of why the proposal is being sent to the organization.

0 Title page

The title page should include the title of the proposal, the name and address of the

submitting organization, the date, and the name of the funding organization.

4 Summary or abstract

Is a one page overview of the information contained in the proposal. Highlight the goals

and objectives of the project.

B-l8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Introduction and background.

This section should contain a description of the setting for the proposal, i.e., the

geographic area and community, the problem definition, the reasons for the project.

Purpose and objectives

This section must have a clear concise statement of the goals and objectives of the project

per the discussion above.

Organization structure and capabilities

Describe the ability of your organization to perform the tasks contained in the proposal.

Include any previous experience in carrying out grant responsibilities.

Work plan or program plan

Describe the tasks or actions planned in a step-by-step manner. Indicate a time table for

performing these tasks.

Budget

This brief overview is not meant to be a complete primer on grant writing. There are many

excellent books that can assist your efforts to learn the grant writer’s art. Experience is the

best teacher - don’t be afraid to plunge ahead - the worst that can happen is that your

proposal does not get funded. If your proposal fails, ask the organization why. This way you

will be able to improve the next submittal. Keep trying until you get it right.

Resources

4 Funding of Expanded Uses Activities by State Revolving Fund Programs. August

1990. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Washington D.C. #EPA 430/09-90-006.

4 Getting A Grant in the 1990s. 1982. Robert Lefferts. Prentis Hall Press, New York, N.Y.

4 The Foundation Center’s Guide to Proposal Writing. 1993. Jane C. Geever and

Patricia McNeill. The Foundation Center, New York.

SUCCESSFUL FUNDING 4 B-19
4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout Publications:

Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, July, 1988. Restoring the

Balance, a report to the Legislature and the Department of Fish and Game. 84

pages. #124-J. $3.00

Hallock, R. J,, June 1987. Sacramento River System Salmon and Steelhead Problems

and Enhancement Opportunities, a report to the California Advisory Committee

on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 92 pages. #125-J. $4.00

North Coast Basin Working Group, August, 1987. North Coast Basins Report, a report

to the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 50

pages. #126-J. $2.50

Upper Sacramento River Salmon and Steelhead Advisory Committee, republished July

1988. Upper Sacramento River Report, a series of four reports to the Director

of the Department of Fish and Game. 32 pages. #127-J. $2.50

Meyer Resources, Inc., March 1987. Alternative approaches to provide an adequate

economic methodology for valuing salmon and steelhead. Davis, CA. A

report to the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout.

#128-J. 36 pages. $2.50

August 1987. An economic methodology for valuing salmon and steelhead.

Davis, CA. A report to the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and

Steelhead Trout. 75 pages. #129-J. $4.00

April 1988.Benefits from present and future salmon and steehead production

in California. Davis, CA. A report to the California Advisory Committee on

Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 78 pages. #130-J. $4.00

Above publications are available from the California Legislature, Joint Publications Office,

State Capitol, Box 942849, Sacramento CA, 94249-0001. When ordering, please add sales

tax. Make checks payable to State of California. Use the document reference number when

making your request.

Arnold, R.K. and S. Levy, V. Nourse. 1982. Recreational Activity in California and Ten

Regions of the State 1980-2000. Center for Continuing Study of the California

Economy, Palo Alto, CA.

Bailey, E. H. 1966. Geology of Northern Caljfornia. University of California Press,

Berkeley, CA.

Barbour, M. G. and J. Major, eds. 1989. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. John Wiley

and Sons, New York, NY.

Barnhart, R. A. 1986. Species Profile: Life histories and environmental requirements of

coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) -Steelhead salmon. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.60). Washington D.C.

Bass, R. E. and A. I. Herson. 1993. Successful CEQA Compliance: A Step-by-Step

Approach. (Second Edition). Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA. 624 pages.

Beauchamp, D. A. and M. F. Shepard, G. B. Pauley. 1983. Species Profile: Life histories

and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific

North west) - Steelhead. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82

(11.60). Washington D.C.
Bjomn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams.

American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19.

Bolling, David, Ed. 1994. How to Save A River. Island Press, Washington D.C. 266 pages.

$17.00.

Bonar, S. A. and G. B. Pauley, G. L. Thomas. 1989. Species Profile: Life histories and

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific

North west) -Pink salmon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82

(11.88). Washington D.C.

Brown, L.R., and P.B. Moyle. 1991 Status of coho salmon in California. Report prepared

for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Available from the Department of

Fishery and Wildlife Biology, UC Davis.

Browning, B. M. 1972. The Natural Resources of Elkhorn Slough: Their present and

future use. California Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Wetland Series, No.

4. Sacramento.

Bums, J.J. and K.J. Frost, L. F. Lowry. 1985. Marine Mammals Species Accounts.

California Department of Fish and Game, Technical Bulletin No. 7. Sacramento.

California Association of Realtors. 1989. Matrix of Land Use Planning Measures 1971-

1989. California Association of Realtors, Los Angeles.

California Coastal Commission. 1987. California Coastal Resource Guide. ed. M.

Caughman and J. Ginsberg. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

1994. Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California's

Coastal Zone. Final Draft, March 1994. California Coastal Commission, San

Francisco, CA.

California Department of Conservation. 1979. California Soils: An assessment. California

Department of Conservation, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1979. Anadromous Fishes of California.

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

1988a. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, CA.

1992. Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and

Endangered Animals and Plants. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 1991. Urban Stream Restoration Program.

California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento CA.

California Environmental Trust. 1987. Wildlife Habitat Values of Leslie Salt Company

Property Around San Francisco Bay: Summaries of 54 Studies. Prepared for

Leslie/Interagency Group. California Environmental Trust, San Francisco, CA.

California Office of Planning and Research. 1987. State of California General Plan

Guidelines. Sacramento, CA.

California Office of Planning and Research and the California Department of Water

Resources. 1979. California Water Atlas. Sacramento, CA.

The California Resources Agency. July 1995. California's Ocean Resources: An Agenda

for the Future (draft). Sacramento, CA.

California State Lands Commission. 1994. California Comprehensive Offshore Resource

Study. Vol 1. 1994. California State Lands Commission, Sacramento, CA. 435 pages.

R-2 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
 1993. California Rivers: A Public Trust Report. California State Lands Commission,

Sacramento, CA. 334 pages.

California State Water Resources Control Board. November 1988. Nonpoint Source

Management Plan. California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of

Water Quality, Sacramento, CA.

1987. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program. California State Water Resources

Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, CA.

 1992. 1992 Water Quality Assessment. California State Water Resources Control

Board, Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, CA.

1988a. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Water of California - California

Ocean Plan. California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water

Quality, Sacramento, CA.

 1992. California Ocean Plan: Amendment of the Water Quality Control Plan for

Ocean Waters of California. California State Water Resources Control Board,

Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, CA.

1990. California Ocean Plan. California State Water Resources Control Board,

Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, CA.

California Water Resources Center. January 1993. Directory of Water Resources Expertise

in California. California Water Resources Center, University of California,

Riverside, CA.

Campaign to Save California Wetlands. May 1995. California Marsh Manual. To obtain a copy

contact the Campaign to Save California’s Wetlands: Southern California Office,

19276 Torrey Pines Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, 714/374-4825 or Northern

California Office, Box 2065, Oakland, CA 94620-0651, 5 10/654-7847.

 1993. Wetland Wealth: The Value of Wetlands to California’s Fisheries. Prepared

by William M. Kier Associates. Copies available from Campaign to Save California’s

Wetlands, P.O. Box 20651, Oakland CA 94620.

Cleary , C. Rex and Dennis Phillippi. 1993. Coordinated Resource Management Guidelines.

Society for Range Management, 200 pp. Available for $18.00 from Society for

Range Management, 1839 York St., Denver, CO 80206. 303/ 355-7070.

Community Creek Watch Program, Coyote Creek Riparian Station and Santa Clara Valley

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. 1994. StreamKeeper’s Guide to

Pollution Prevention: A Manual for Protecting Creeks, Stormdrains and the Bay.

San Francisquito Creek Watershed.

Coyote Creek Riparian Station. 1994. Santa Clara County Citizens’ MonitoringlStream

Inventory Project: Protocols and Procedures. Coyote Creek Riparian Station,

P.O. Box 1027, Alviso, CA 95002.

Curtin, Daniel J., Jr. 1993. California Land Use and Planning Law. (Thirteenth Edition).

Solano Press Books. 311 pages.

Dennis, N. B., M. L. Marcus, and H. Hill. 1984. Status and Trends of California Wetlands.

Prepared for the Assembly Resources Subcommittee on Status and Trends.

California State Legislature, Joint Publications Office, Sacramento, CA.

Novato:ES A/Madrone.

WATERSHED REFERENCES 4 R-3
Doppelt, Bob, et al. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Save America’s

River Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C. Available at bookstores, $55.00

(hardcover), $27.50 (paperback).

Evans, Craig. 1991. Fixer Upper Streams, Landscape Architecture, 81(10):92-95.

Faber, Phyllis M. and Robert F. Holland. 1988. Common Riparian Plants of California.

Pickleweed Press, 212 Del Casa, Mill Valley, CA 94941. $18.00.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual For

Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Corps of Engineers,

U.S EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Soil Conservation Service Cooperative

Technical Publication. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Ferren, Wayne R. 1985. Carpinteria Salt Marsh: Environment, history, and botanical

resources of a Southern California estuary. University of Santa Barbara, Santa

Barbara, CA.

Firehock, Karen. 1995. A Citizen’s Streambank Restoration Handbook. Izaak Walton

League of America. 111 pages. To order send $15.00 payable to the Izaak Walton

League of America, 707 Conservation Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20878-2983.

Fisher R. and W. Ury. 1981. Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

Houghton Mifflin Co. 160 pp.

Flosi, Gary and Forrest L. Reynolds. October 1994. California Salmonid Stream Restoration

Manual. Second Edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland

Fisheries Division, Sacramento, CA. 435 pp.

Gaffney, Karen. 1993. Riparian Restoration - Successful Revegetation Methods,

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual California Salmon and Steelhead Trout

Restoration Conference, Eureka, California, March 18-21:15-17.

Geever, Jane C. and Patricia McNeill. 1993. The Foundation Center’s Guide to Proposal

Writing. The Foundation Center, New York. 191 pp.

Gordon, Nancy, Thomas McMahon, and Brian Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An

Introduction for Ecologists. University of Melbourne: John Wiley & Sons, New

York. 526 pp.

Gray, Donald H. and Andrew T. Leiser. 1989. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion

Control. Robert E. Kreiger Publ. Co., Inc. $34.95.

Hassler, T. J. 1982. Species Profile: Life histories and environmental requirements of

coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) - Striped bass. U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.82). Washington D.C.

Hedgepeth, Joel W. 1985. Coast Barriers of the Pacific Coast: Summary Report. Coastal

Barrier Resources System. Appendix D. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington

D.C.

Higgins, P., S. Dobush and D. Fuller. June 1992. Factors in Northern California

Threatening Stocks with Extinction. Humboldt Chapter of American Fisheries

Society.

Holland, V. L. and D. J. Kiel. 1986. California Vegetation. California State Polytechnic

University, San Luis Obispo, CA.

R-4 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Jones and Stokes, Associates, Inc., et al. 1979. Protection and Restoration of San Francisco

Bay Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Habitat Description, Use and Delineation.

Volume ZZ. Prepared of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.

 1981a. Basic Ecological Concepts. Ecological Characterization of the Central and

Northern California Coastal Region. Vol. I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biological Report No. FWS/OBS-80/42. Washington, D.C.

1981c. Species Accounts. Ecological Characterization of the Central and Northern

California Coastal Region. Vol. ZZ Part 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biological Report No. FWS/OBS-80/43. Washington, D.C.

1981b. Regional Characterizations. Ecological Characterization of the Central

and Northern California Coastal Region. Vol. ZZ Part 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Biological Report No. FWS/OBS-SO/4 1. Washington, D.C.

1981d. Watersheds and Basins. Ecological Characterization of the Central and

Northern California Coastal Region. Vol. IV. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biological Report No. FWS/OBS-80/45. Washington, D.C.

Josselyn, M. Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California. California Sea Grant

College Program, La Jolla, CA.

Josselyn, M., et al. 1993. Evaluation of Coastal Conservancy Enhancement Projects 1978-

 1992. Report prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy, Oakland CA.

Kay, Burgess L. and Robert D. Slayback. 1986. California Interagency Seeding Guide for

Erosion Control Plantings. California Association of Resource Conservation

Districts.

Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. January 1991. Long Range Plan for the

Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program. Prepared

by William M. Kier Associates for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA.

Know Your Watershed/Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC). 1994.

Watershed Management Kit In A Box. CTIC, 1220 Potter Drive, Room 170, W.

Lafayette, IN 47906-1383. $15.00.

Kondolf, Mathias G. 1990. Hydrologic and Channel Stability Considerations in Stream

Habitat Restoration, in Environmental Restoration. ed. by Berger, John J., Island

Press, Washington, D.C.: 214-227.

Konkel, G. W., and J.D. McIntyre. 1987. Trends in spawning populations of Pacific

andromous salmonids. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Fish and Wildlife Technical

Report 9. Washington D.C.

Lake Michigan Federation. 1990. Wetlands and Water Quality: A Citizen’s Handbook for

Protecting Wetlands. To order a copy contact: Lake Michigan Federation, 59 East

Van Buren, #2215, Chicago, IL 60605,312/939-0838.

Lane, J. M. and A. Woods. 1975. A Natural History of Anaheim Bay. The Marine

Resources of Anaheim Bay. Fish Bulletin No. 165. Department of Fish and Game,

Sacramento, CA.

Laufle, J. C. and G. B. Pauley, M.F. Shepard 1986. Species Profile: Life histories and environmental

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) - Coho salmon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.48). Washington D.C.

WATERSHED REFERENCES 4 R-5
Lefferts, Robert. 1982. Getting A Grant in the 1990s. Prentis Hall Press, New York, N.Y.

Lipton, Douglas W. and Katharine F. Wellman. June 1995. Economic Valuation of Natural

Resources-A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policymakers. Decision Analysis

Series No. 5. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD.

Loomis, John and Chris Unkel. 1989. The Economic Contibution of Wildlife Viewers.

Outdoor California

Lucas, Andrea. 1993. Biotechnical Erosion Control: A Natural Future, Landscape

Design, 6(2): 18-21.

Lusch, E. 1985. Comprehensive Guide to Western Gamefish. Frank Amato Publications,

Portland, Oregon. 125 pages.

MacDonald, L. et al. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry

Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U.S. EPA, Region 10.

166 pages. Publication # EPA/9 10/9-9 l-001.

Mahrdt, C. R. et al. 1976. Natural Resources of Coastal Wetlands in Northern Santa

Barbara County: Their present and future use. Coastal Wetland Series No. 14.

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Mancuso, Anthony. 1994. California Non-Profit Corporation Handbook, Sixth Edition.

Nolo Press, 950 Parker Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, 51 0/ 549-1967.

Mattole Restoration Council. 1989. Elements of Recovery. Mattole Restoration Council,

P.O. Box 160, Petrolia, CA 95558. (707) 629-3514

1995. Dynamics of Recovery. Mattole Restoration Council, P.O. Box 160, Petrolia,

CA 95558. (707) 629-3514

McCain, M., D. Fuller, L. Decker, K. Overton. 1990. Stream Habitat Classification and

Inventory Procedures. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San

Francisco, CA.

Meehan, W .R., editor. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid

fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.751

pages.

Mendocino County Resource Conservation District. 1992. The Garcia River Watershed

Enhancement Plan. Prepared by J. Monschke Watershed Management and

William M. Kier Associates for the California Coastal Conservancy. To obtain

copies contact the MCRCD, 405 Orchard Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482, 707/468-9223.

Price is $10.00.

1995. Tomki Watershed: A Project of Community Concern. Video Tape, 20 minutes.

To obtain copies contact the MCRCD, 405 Orchard Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482, 707/

468-9223. Purchase price is $15.00, rental is $10.00.

Meyer Resources, Inc., April 1988. Benefits from present and future salmon and steelhead

production in California. Davis, CA. A report to the California Advisory

Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 78 pages. #130-J.

Monroe, G. W. 1973. The Natural Resources of Humboldt Bay. Coastal Wetland Series.

Vol. 6. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Monroe, G. W ., et al. 1974. The Natural Resources of the Eel River. Coastal Wetland Series.

Vol. 9. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

R-6 b WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Mooney, Harold A. 1977. Southern Coastal Scrub. Terrestrial Vegetation. ed. M. G.

Barbour and J. Major. Pp. 471-489. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Moyle, P. B. et al. 1989. Fish Species of Special Concern of California. Final Report to the

Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Div., Rancho Cordova, CA.

Murphy, Michael L. 1995. Forestry Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of Anadromous

Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska -Requirements for Protection

and Restoration. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 7.

NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 156 pp.

Napa County Resource Conservation District. 1993. Land Stewardship Watershed Plan

Development. Brochure from the Napa County RCD: Napa CA.

1994. The Napa River Watershed Owner’s Manual: A Framework for Integrated

Resource Management. Napa County Resource Conservation District: Napa CA.

National Marine Fisheries Service. May 1994. Fisheries of the UnitedStates1993, Current

Fishery Statistic No. 9300. NMFS, Washington D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. EPA. October 1991.

Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program: Program Development

and Approval Guidance. 43 pages. Copies can be obtained from U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington D.C. 20460.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Lipton, Douglas W. and

Katharine F. Wellman. June 1995. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources -

A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policymakers. Decision Analysis Series No.

5. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD.

National Park Service. 1995. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and

Greenway Corridors: A Resource Book. (Fourth Edition). U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance

Program. 163 pages.

1995. Santa Margarita River Watershed: Today’s Management Framework -

Participants in Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. 110 pages.

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology

and Public Policy. National Academy Press.

Nehlson, W., J.E. William, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads:

Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Fisheries

16:(2):4-21.

Onuf, C. P. 1987. The Ecology of Mugu Lagoon, California: An estuarine profile. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.15). Washington D.C.

Oregon State University Extension Service. 1993. Miracle at Bridge Creek: How to Build a

Natural Resource Coalition Among Groups at Odds. 30 & 90 minute video). Available

from Oregon State University, Publication Orders, Agricultural Communications,

OSU, Admin. Services A422, Corvallis, OR 9733l-2119. 503/ 737-2513.

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. 1994. Fisheries, Wetlands and

Jobs: The Value of Wetlands to America’s Fisheries. Prepared by William M. Kier

Associates. Copies available from the Campaign to Save California’s Wetlands, P.O.

Box 2065 1, Oakland, CA 94620.

WATERSHED REFERENCES 4 R-7
Pauley, G. B. and B. M. Bortz, M. F. Shepard. Species Profile: Life histories and

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific

Northwest) - Steelhead trout. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report

82 (11.62). Washington D.C.

Pauley, G. B. and K. Oshima, K. L. Bowers, G. L. Thomas. Species Profile: Life histories

and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific

North west) -Sea-run Cutthroat trout. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Report 82 (11.86). Washington D.C.

Pinkerton, E. 1991. Locally based water quality planning: contributions to fish habitat

protection. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 48:1326-1333.

Plafkin, J., et al. 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols . for Use in Streams and Rivers. U.S.

EPA. 200 pages. Publication # EPA/444/4-89-001.

Prunuske, Liza. 1987. Groundwork - A Handbook for Erosion Control in Northern

Coastal California. Marin Co. Resource Conservation District. P.O. Box 219,

Point Reyes Station, CA 94956.

Reichard, Nancy. Stream Care Guide for Streamside Property Owners and Residents -

with Special Emphasis for Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. Redwood Community

Action Agency, 904 G St., Eureka CA 95501.707/445-0881.

Remsen, J. V. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California: An annotated list of

declining or vulnerable bird species. Department of Fish and Game, Wild

Management Branch Administrative Report No. 78-1, Sacramento, CA.

Remy, M., et al. 1993. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

(Seventh Edition). Solano Press Books. 787 pages.

The Resources Agency of California. July 1995. California’s Ocean Resources: An Agenda

for the Future (draft). Sacramento, CA.

Richard, Christopher M. 1993. Guide to East Bay Creeks. The Oakland Museum Store,

1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607. 510/ 834-2129, $9.95 (Guide with maps),

$4.50 (Maps only) + shipping.

Rigney, Teresa E. 1993. Citizens Water Quality Monitoring of Urban Creeks. Coyote Creek

Riparian Station, P.O. Box 1027, Alviso, CA 95002.

Robinson, David L. San Diego’s Endangered Species Our Vanishing Resources. San

Diego.

Rosgen, D. 1991. A Short Course on Stream Classifications and Applications. Wildland

Hydrology Consultants. Pagosa Springs, CO.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1992. Napa River Watershed

Draft Background Information Report. SRBRWQCB: Oakland CA.

The San Francisco Foundation. 1990. Ecological Restoration in the San Francisco Bay

Area: A Descriptive Directory and Sourcebook. Restoring the Earth, Berkeley,

CA 94704.

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. March 1995. Public Trust and the River: A

Discussion of Santa Ynez River and Natural Resources., Summary of Presentations.

March 26, 1995. Craig Fusaro, Ed. Santa Barbara, CA. 38 pp.

R-8 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Santa Cruz County Planning Department. Stream Care in Santa Cruz County: A Guide for

Streamside Property Owners. Santa Cruz Co. Planning Dept., Resource Section,

701 Ocean Street, Room 406B, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.408/425-2860.

Smith, E. J. and D. H. Fry, H. W. Frey. 1976. Coastal County Fish and Wildlife Resources

and their Utilization. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG). 1988. The State of Santa

Monica Bay. SCAG, Los Angeles.

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. The Ecology of the Southern

California Bight: Implications for water quality management. No. TR104.

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. El Segundo, CA.

Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District. 1993. Vineyard Management

Practices: An Environmental Approach to Development and Maintenance Contact

Robin Davis, Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District, 1301

Redwood Way, Suite 170, Petaluma, CA 94954.707/794-1242. Cost is $25.00.

Sport Fishing Institute. 1988. The Economic Impact of sport fishing in the State of

California. Washington D.C.

Streiner, Carol and J. Loomis. June 1995. Estimating the Benefits of the Urban Stream

Restoration Program (draft). Prepared for the Department of Water Resources,

Sacramento CA.

Trinity River Restoration Program. 1993. Action Plan for Restoration of the South Fork Trinity

River Watershed and its Fisheries. Prepared by Pacific Watershed Associates for the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Trinity River Restoration Program: WeaverviIle CA.

Trout Unlimited. 1995. "Last Chance for the Pacific Salmon." (60 minute video) Available

from Trout Unlimited, Patrick Higgins @ 707/ 822-9428.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Regulatory Program. EP 1145-2-l.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station publications available at

no cost from the U.S.A.C.E. Waterways Experiment Station, WESEER,

Environmental Lab, P.O. Box 631, Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631:

Henderson and Shields. 1984. Environmental Features for Streambank Protection

Projects. Report E-84-11.

Hynson, et al. 1985. Environmental Features for Streamside Levee Projects. Report E-85-7.

Nunnley and Shields. 1985. Incorporation of Environmental Features for Flood Control

Channel Projects. Report E-85-3.

Shields. 1982. Environmental Features for Flood Control Channels. Report E-82-7.

U.S.EPA. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S., U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations,

Washington D.C.

August 1990. Funding of Expanded Uses Activities by State Revolving Fund

Programs. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Washington DC. #EPA 430/09-90-006.

1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint

Pollution in Coastal Waters. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, Washington DC. Document # EPA-840-B-92-002.860 pages. Copies can

be obtained from U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC. 20460.

WATERSHED REFERENCES b R-9
1993. Watershed Protection: Catalog of Federal Programs. Office of Wetlan ds,

Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. EPA. Document #EPA-841-B-93-002, NCEPI,

11029 Kenwood Rd., Bldg. 5, Cincinnati, OH 45242. Free.

July 1994. Funding NPS Projects Through the State Revolving Fund Program:

Experiences and Opportunities. U.S. EPA presentation at The Challenge of

Watershed Protection conference July 26-28, 1994 in San Francisco, CA.

U.S. EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). October 1991.

Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program: Program Development

and Approval Guidance. 43 pages. Copies can be obtained from U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington D.C. 20460.

Vondracek, B. and R. Z. Callaham, July, 1987. California’s Salmon and Steelhead Trout

-A Research and Extension Program. Wildland Resources Center Report No.

13, prepared for the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead

Trout. 33 pages. (Available form the Wildland Resources Center, Division of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, 145 Mulford Hall,

Berkeley, CA 94720.)

Warner, Richard E. and K. M. Hendrix. 1984. California Riparian Systems Ecology,

Conservation and Productive management. University of California Press,

Berkeley, CA.

Weaver, William E. and Danny K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads:

A Guide for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and

closing wildland roads. Prepared for the Mendocino County Resource Conservation

District, To obtain copies contact the MCRCD, 405 Orchard Ave., Ukiah, CA

95482, 707/468-9223. Price is $20.00.

Wildland Resources Center. May 1993. Wildland Expertise and Facilities in the University

of California System. Wildland Resources Center, University of California,

Berkeley CA.

Zedler, J. B. 1995. Salt Marsh Restoration: Lessons from California. Pages 75-95. In

Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. John Cairns, Jr. ed. CRC Press, Inc. Boca

Raton, FL. 425 pp.

1982. The Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes: A community

profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report No. 81/54. Washington

D.C.

Zedler, J. B. and C. S. Nordby. 1986. The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California: An

estuarine profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.5).

Washington D.C.

Zedler, Paul H. 1987. The Ecology of Southern California Vernal Pools: A community profile.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.11). Washington D.C.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1996-404-447145421

R-l 0 4 WATERSHED RESTORATION: A GUIDE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA