United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA-600/2-80-104
Laboratory August 19 80
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Water Quality and
Biological Effects of
Urban Runoff on
Coyote Creek
Phase I
Preliminary Survey
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further deveJopment and application of:en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fieilds.
The nine series are: i
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology j
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies *
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development i
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports ',
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This Work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards. ;
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. :
-------
EPA-600/2-80-104
August 1980
WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
URBAN RUNOFF ON COYOTE CREEK
Phase I - Preliminary Survey
by
Robert Pitt and Martin Bozeman
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
San Francisco, California 94111
Grant No. R805418
Project Officers
Anthony N. Tafuri and Richard Field
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08817
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental; Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use. '•
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U*S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul-water, and-
spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environ-.
ment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its compo-
nents requires a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solving,
and involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from munici-
pal and community sources; for the preservation and treatment of public drink-
ing water supplies; and for minimizing the adverse economic,, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products of
that research and is a vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
An evaluation of the receiving water effects of urban runoff is necessary
before urban runoff control goals and practices can be established and selected.
This report presents the preliminary results of an evaluation of the water
quality and biological effects of urban runoff on Coyote Creek, near San
Jose, California. Coyote Creek, upstream and in the study area, receives
minimal pollutant discharges, except for urban runoff. The biological, water
and sediment quality gradients observed illustrate significant degradation
in the quality of the creek in the urban area. Additional studies, currently
being conducted in Coyote Creek, will attempt to establish local control
goals for urban runoff. These results and study procedures can be evaluated
by others in various parts of the country for their own use.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This preliminary report presents the initial results and conclusions from
the EPA-sponsored demonstration study of the water quality and biological
effects of urban runoff on Coyote Creek, near San Jose, California; This first
phase included investigating various field procedures that would be most sensi-
tive in evaluating water, sediment and biological changes in the creek as it
passed through the urban area. The procedures identified as most promising are
currently being used in additional Coyote Creek studies.
The report describes the characteristics of urban runoff affecting the
creek, sources of urban runoff pollutants, effects of urban^runoff!and poten-
tial controls for urban runoff. Local urban runoff characterization informa-
tion is summarized, based on a previous EPA sponsored demonstration project in
the area (Demonstration of Non-Point Pollution Abatement Through Improved Street
Cleaning Practices-EPA grant No. S804432, Pitt 1979) and from the local "208"
study (Metcalf and Eddy 1978). Sources of urban runoff pollutants 'in the
study area are being investigated as an important part of the field activities
of the project and include sampling runoff from many source areas .(such as
street surfaces, parking lots, landscaped areas, rooftops and rain). ^-.
Various short- and long-term biological sampling techniques were used
to evaluate the fish, benthic macroinvertebrate and attached algae condi-
tions at many stations in the creek, above and within the urban area. Creek
water and sediment samples were also obtained and analyzed for a broad list
of parameters. In most cases, very pronounced gradients of these creek
quality indicators were observed, with the urbanized portion of the creek
being significantly degraded. Current additional monitoring is being con-
ducted to identify the urban runoff control" goals necessary to improve creek
quality to adequate levels.
This preliminary report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Grant No.
R805418 by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California, under
the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This iee'port
covers the period November 1977 to May 1980. '
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foireword ............... .......... .... ..... iii
Abstract ................ ..... • • • ........... iv
Figures .......................... ........ .vi
Tables. . .................. . . ..... :• ....... vii
1. Introduction. ... ......... ....... ........ 1
2. Sampling Methodology and Preliminary Conclusions ..... ..... 4
3. Coyote Creek Watershed Description ......... ..... ... 8
General Description .................. ..... '8
Hydrology. ....................... . .... 11
Outfall Locations ................ ...... ,. . 11
Sampling Station Descriptions ....... ...*....... 15
4. Characterization of Urban Runoff. ... .......... .... 20
5. Sources of Urban Runoff Pollutants. ........ ........ 25
6. Effects of Urban Runoff ............ .......... 35
Runoff and Receiving Water Quality During Storms ........ 35
Dry Weather Receiving Water Quality ............... 39
Sediment Chemical Quality. . . ................. ,42
Organic Tissue Analyses. . . ................ . . . 48
Fish .... .................. • • ...... 50
Benthic Organisms ......... ....... ... ..... 53
Attached Algae . ........... ............. 53
7. Control of Urban Runoff .................... ' ... 58
Removal Goals ........ . ......... ........ 58
Urban Runoff Control Measures ......... ......... 60
References. .... ....... ...... ................ 66
Appendix
A. Sediment Quality Conditions. ....... ..... .. ....... 68
v
-------
Number
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
FIGURES
San Francisco Bay Area showing the general location of the
Coyote Creek Watershed ....... ........ 1 .... 9
Coyote Creek Watershed ............. . . . • ...... 10
Lake Anderson releases during the study period .... ...... 12
Locations of , stormwater outfalls within area of study. :. . ..... 14
Elevation and location of sampling stations. ...... ..... 17
Water quality trends along Coyote Creek (March 31, 1977) ..... 41
Sediment quality conditions along Coyote Creek . .... ..... 44
Particle size distribution of sediments. . . . . . . . . ..... 4-6-
Abundance of benthic taxa collected from natural and
artificial substrates in Coyote Creek during ,, spring of 1978. . . .57
vi
-------
TABLES
Number
3_1 Description of stormdrain outfalls and drainage areas between
Silver Creek confluence and the town of Coyote on Coyote Creek . .13
3-2 Sampling station descriptions. . *15
3-3 Watershed area above sampling stations . ..16
4-1 Flow-Averaged soluble urban runoff concentrations 21
.
4-2 Primary distribution of metals and ligands in urban runoff ... .23
4-3 Annual urban runoff yield affecting each station 24
5-1 Urban runoff pollutant concentrations from major areas 26
5-2 Potential significant urban runoff pollutant sources ...... .27
5-3 Major urban areas and delivery yields to outfall 28
5-4 Contributions from various areas to outfall runoff yields 30
o o
5-5 Relative annual source depositions * * " *
5-6 Relative annual runoff yield contributions ........•••• 33
5-7 Expected San Jose urban runoff characteristics : . . 34
6-1 Runoff water quality compared to beneficial use criteria 36
6-2 Comparison of urban runoff, street surface yield
and wastewater treatment plant effluent. ............ -38
6-3 Water quality conditions from Coyote Creek stations 40
6-4 Water quality conditions in Coyote Creek by location and
season • ****
6-5 Sediment concentration increases between the Miramonte
monitoring station (non-urbanized) and downstream locations. . . .47
Vil
-------
Number
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
Lead concentrations in biological organisms,
Zinc concentrations in biological organisms.
Page
, .49
, .49
Fish species currently known to occur in the Coyote Creek
drainage system :
Taxonomic composition and relative abundance of fish collected
in seine samples from Coyote Creek during fall 1977 and spring
,51
1978.
Taxonomic composition and relative abundance of benthic '
inacroinvertebrates collected in Coyote Creek during spring
of 1978 •...,,
I
Taxonomic composition and relative abundance "of diatoms I
collected on glass slides in Coyote Creek during the spring
of 1978
.52
,54
.58
Various urban runoff control goals 59
Control measures most suitable for controlling pollutants
from various source areas
,61
Relative area control requirements to improve runoff quality
at outfall „ '
,62
Suitability of control measures for controlling common urban
runoff pollutants * . . . . 63
Control measures and unit removal costs. . .
Common parameter concentrations in sediments
Parameters generally within 0.1 to 1.0 mg/kg concentration
range in sediments . «
Parameters generally within 1.0 to'10 mg/kg concentration;
range in sediments ......
,65
,68
,69
70
Parameters generally within a 10 to 100 mg/kg concentration
range in sediments 71
Parameters generally within a 100 to 1000 mg/kg concentration
range in sediments . . . .
,72
Parameters with concentrations generally greater than
1000 mg/kg in sediments „
72
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report describes a study conducted to investigate the sediment, wa-
ter quality and biological effects of urban runoff in a small receiving water.
The project was conducted simultaneously with the last parts of a demonstra-
tion project conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the City of San Jose,
California, and the Environmental Protection Agency entitled,, "Demonstration
of Non-Point Pollution Abatement Through Improved Street Cleaning Practices"
(Pitt 1979). Many of the data collected during this previous; project were
used for the runoff effects study.
The purpose of this study was 'to investigate the kinds of sediment, water
quality and biological changes that can occur in streams as they pass through
urban areas. This report should be useful to decision makers in developing
urban runoff control programs. Coyote Creek and San Jose were excellent study
areas for the following reasons:
• Coyote Creek is not affected by sanitary or industrial wastes in the,
region of study.
• Coyote Creek is a small stream transversing a large urban area, with
its upstream waters passing through two man-made reservoirs. These
reservoirs control the creek discharge. Flow monitoring stations
exist.
• The upper reaches of Coyote Creek in the proposed study area pass
through an undeveloped area and are not affected by urban runoff un-
til the creek reaches San Jose.
• Many Western cities discharge into similar small receiving waters
and the expected receiving water effects due to urban runoff are
significant. ,
• The recently completed EPA-funded research project in San Jose (Pitt
1979) contributed detailed pollution-source information for a portion
of the study area and enabled the effort needed to describe the
conditions in the watershed to be significantly reduced.
• - /
This project has resulted in data that demonstrates a degradation of sed-
iment, water quality and biological conditions in Coyote Creek as it passes
through San Jose. This information is needed to estimate the amount of urban
runoff control that may be necessary in order to improve these Coyote Creek
conditions. The three major elements of this study included investigating
the sources of urban runoff pollutants, the effects of these pollutants on the
-------
beneficial uses of the receiving waters, and how the problem pollutants in the
urban runoff can be best controlled.
The first phase in designing an urban runoff control program' is to identi-
fy which pollutants need to be controlled. This is best determined by direct-
ly monitoring the receiving water, sediments, and beneficial uses* This moni-
toring can be supplemented with computer modeling by using locally calibrated
runoff and receiving water models. Few, if any, models are available that can
predict actual biological beneficial use impairments. Therefore,: if biological
uses of the receiving water are important, actual biological conditions must
be studied. Hydrology data, along with sediment and water column chemical
analyses, are necessary to estimate cause and effect relationships. Control
areas having acceptable biological conditions must also be analyzed to help
define goal conditions. Those parameters that exceed these goal conditions
for various sections of the receiving water can then be identified. Seasonal
variations of removal.goals needed to obtain acceptable discharge! limits should
also be determined, as beneficial uses and receiving water assimilative capaci-
ties change with season. Most of the information presently available from this
project addresses this first phase. , ',
The next phase in an urban runoff control program is to determine the sour-
ces of the problem pollutants in the watershed. These sources must be verified
and quantified through actual field monitoring for the identified problem pollu-
tants. Runoff samples, along with dry samples from the source areas, should be
analyzed. Source strengths should be estimated by season for the;problem pol-
lutants. The source areas associated with each problem pollutant!can then be
identified and assigned priorities. Source area information is also being ob-"
tained as part of this project, and preliminary information is presented in
this report.
The third phase in developing an urban runoff control program is to deter-
mine what control measures can be used in the identified "problem'!1 source areas.
Many of these control measures have been examined in area-wide wastewater tman-
agement ("208") studies, and in .research projects in various locations through-
out the country. The effectiveness of the various control measures in the
different source areas must also be determined by local studies. Literature
information can be used to make a preliminary control design thatjcan be modi-
fied with local experience. Much information concerning street cleaning effec-
tiveness in the study area was obtained in a previous project (Pitt 1979). In-
formation concerning other urban runoff control measures was obtained from the
literature.
The field and laboratory activities conducted as part of this study were
preliminary phases of a larger project and involved intensively sampling Coyote
Creek during the spring and early summer months of 1978. Preliminary results
of later phases of this project (source-area information and continued biolog-
ical, water and sediment analyses) have also been used in the preparation of
thisvreport. The objectives of this study were to quantify the biological and.
sediment quality macro-scale gradient as the creek passed through an urban
area. The type and magnitude of changes in the sediment quality and biological
community in Coyote Creek was examined as the creek passed through San Jose
between Lake Anderson and the confluence of Silver Creek. This urban area
-------
includes the Keyes St; and Tropicana study areas that were investigated as
part of the San Jose street cleaning demonstration project (Pitt 1979). In
this reach of Coyote Creek, there are minimal discharges except for urban
runoff. Each sampling area included a stretch of stream several hundred
meters long, which was selected based on the geography and physical/biologi-
cal/chemical homogeneity of that stretch of stream. Each urban sampling area
was located between adjacent urban runoff outfalls. This was necessary to
reduce individual outfall influences on the samples. A continuation of this
study will include specific outfall micro-scale studies.
Various parameters were analyzed as part of this study. The following
list summarizes those parameters that were generally analyzed at each biologi-
cal/sediment sampling station:
• fish
• benthic organisms including aquatic insects, crustaceans, and
molluscs
• attached algae -
• rooted aquatic vegetation (when present)
• sediment size distribution
• sediment biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total
organic carbon and volatile solids
• sediment ammonia, nitrates, organic nitrogen, orthophosphates
and sulfates
• complete elemental scan of the sediment by spark source mass
spectrophotometry - SSMS (including heavy metals)
• complete organic scan of the sediment by mass spectrophotometry/
gas chromatography - MSGC (including P.CB's and pesticides)
• biological tissue analyses for lead and zinc.
During the first phase of this study, most of the biological sampling was
conducted during two adjacent periods during the spring and early summer, while
the sediment and water column samples were only collected once. Most of the
initial sampling program began in March and ended in June, 1978. Other data
obtained in the winter of 1978-1979 and the spring of 1979 were also considered
in preparing this report. The data were analyzed to determine the type and
magnitude of changes that occurred in Coyote Creek as it passed through the
urban area. Additional data will be collected during Phase II.
The following sections of this report present the sampling methodology
and preliminary conclusions; describe the study area; San Jose urban runoff
characteristics; sources of urban runoff pollution in San Jose; the biologi-
cal, sediment and water quality effects of urban runoff; and potential con-
trols of urban runoff.
3
-------
SECTION 2
SAMPLING .METHODOLOGY AND
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Hydrology; Lake Anderson discharge values were obtained from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District and creek flows at the sampling stations were
observed by the field personnel. Flows were maintained at all sampling sta-
tions during the biological sampling phases and sediment collection period.
The lake discharges varied greatly and creek flows were augmented in the study
area by infiltration pond discharges and by groundwater. The sampling period
was also characterized by normal rains.
Receiving water chemistry; Coyote Creek water grab samples were analyzed
for major parameters after a single sampling 'at locations above:and within San
Jose. The water was very turbid, hard to very hard, and had high ammonia and
coliform bacteria concentrations. A marked increase in nitrites, ammonia,
turbidity, chlorides and specific conductance was found as the creek passed
through the urbanized area of the watershed. The concentrations are expected
to be greater and the trends more evident during and immediately after rains.
Runoff water chemistry and yields; Runoff water quality data was obtained
from other studies (Pitt 1979; Metcalf and Eddy 1978). The data were ana-
lyzed by an equilibrium water chemistry computer program to estimate the specif-
ic chemical compounds that would remain soluble and which ones would settle
out in the receiving water sediments. These data were also used to estimate a
total urban area runoff yield for the study area. Many parameters were found
to exceed beneficial use criteria in the runoff. The non-urban stations were
found to be exposed to very little quantities of pollutants, while the urban
stations were exposed to increasing amounts in a downstream direction. It is
suspected that much of the heavy metals, oils and greases tended to accumulate
in the sediments, while nutrients remained soluble.
Sediment quality; Sediment samples were obtained by carefully scooping
bottom material into glass jars and sealing the containers underwater. The
samples were then frozen and delivered to a .laboratory for analysis. The urban
samples contained higher concentrations of many of the parameters as compared
to the non-urban samples. Sulfates (33 to 60 times greater), lead (about 10
times greater), and brthophosphates (up to about 4 times greater), were notable
examples. Much more silt was also found in the urban samples, signifying a
greater discharge of finer sediments from the urban area. Past;studies
(Sartor and Boyd, 1972; Pitt and Amy, 1973; and Pitt, 1979) hav0 shown that
the finer particulates associated with urban runoff typically have greater
concentrations of many pollutants than larger particulates. The urban samples
also had significantly greater concentrations of high molecular jweight hydro-
carbon and oxygenated compounds.
-------
Organic tissue analyses; Selected organisms (mosquito fish, filamentous
algae, crayfish and cattail plant segments) were obtained at most sampling
stations. These were chemically digested and analyzed for total lead and zinc
concentrations. Lead concentrations in urban samples of algae, crayfish and
cattails were 2 to 3 times greater than in non-urban samples, while zinc con-
centrations in urban algae and cattail samples were about 3 times the non-urban
sample concentrations. Fish lead and zinc concentrations did not noticeably
increase. Bioaccumulation of lead and zinc in the organisms compared to the
sediments occured for many of the samples and stations (up to a maximum factor
of about 6). Bioaccumulation of lead and zinc in the organisms compared to
water column concentrations was at least 100 to 500 times greater, depending
on the organism.
Fish, benthic macroinvertebrates and attached algae; Fish were collected
throughout the study area by seining representative habitats in both riffles
and pools. Captured fish were identified and counted and the total length for
each individual was recorded. Replicate benthic macroinvertebrate samples
were collected from natural substrates in both pool and riffle habitats by
means of an Ekman dredge and a Surber sampler, as appropriate.. Additionally,
artificial substrates (replicate pairs of .Hester-Bendy multiplate samplers)
were employed at each sampling area. The benthic samples were washed through
a 500|j sieve and the organisms retained on the screen were picked, sorted,
and preserved in 70% ethanol for identification and enumeration. Attached
algae was sampled from both natural and artificial substrates throughout the
various reaches of the stream. Qualitative samples of attached algae were
collected by scraping uniform areas of natural substrates such as logs, rocks,
etc. Quantitative collections were made with the use of artificial substrates
(diatometers equipped with glass slides) suspended in the water column. Quali-
tative samples were preserved in 5% buffered formalin for later identification.
Diatometer samples were scraped, cleaned with 30% hydrogen peroxide and potas-
sium permangate, identified, and counted.
These preliminary biological investigations in Coyote Creek have indicated
distinct differences in the taxonomic composition and relative abundance of the
aquatic biota present in the various reaches of the stream. The non-urbanized
section of the creek has been found to support a comparatively diverse assembl-
age of aquatic organisms including at least 12 species of fish and various
benthic macroinvertebrate taxa such as mayflies, caddisflies, aquatic beetles,
midges, blackflies, snails, and fingernail clams. In contrast, however, the
urbanized portion of the stream has been shown to comprise an aquatic community
that is generally lacking in diversity and is dominated by "pollution tolerant
fishes such as mosquito fish and pollution tolerant benthic invertebrates such
as tubeficid worms.
Phase II Studies; During 1979, additional tests in Coyote Creek will be
conducted to obtain data during more biologically critical sampling periods
and to better define the transition zone between the urban and non-urban por-
tions of the watershed. A limited sediment quality survey on a micro-scale
near a major storm drain outfall in the urban area will, also be conducted.
The following paragraphs briefly describe the phase II field studies:
-------
• Gradient survey. A survey of the creek gradient through the study
area will enable changes in gradient that may affect the biological
conditions in the creek to be determined.
• Temperature survey. Natural and man-induced temperature gradients
can have -an effect on the biological community and may be caused by
urban runoff, dam release, vegetation shading, groundwater infil-
tration, etc. Day and night temperature surveys of water tempera-
ture will therefore be conducted.
• Micro analyses. Closely spaced sediment samples will be collected
at various depths above, at and below a storm drain outfall located
in the urbanized portion of the watershed. Various physical and
chemical analyses (sediment size distribution, COD, Kjeldahl ni-
trogen, total phosphorus, sulfur, arsenic, lead, and zinc) will be
performed on each sample.
• Water and sediment chemical analyses. Water and sediment samples
will be collected at each study area during the biological sur-
veys. Creek flows will also be monitored at each study area and
the long-term dam releases will be obtained. ,The phase I studies
have identified the parameters noted above as the most indicative
of urban runoff problems in Coyote Creek. Manual replicate sed-
iment samples and composited water samples will be obtained for
analyses at each study area during each collection period.
• Continuing biological-studies in Coyote Creek during 1979 will fo-
cus on delineating the changes in the .resident aquatic biota which
potentially result from the influences of urban runoff pollution
within the watershed. The differences in the taxonomic composi-
tion and abundance of aquatic organisms which populate the urbanized
and non-urbanized reaches of the stream will be further investiga-
ted. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate populations in early
spring and autumn of 1979 will be studied. By scheduling collec-
tions during these periods, it will be possible to augment the
earlier data collected in 1978 and thereby gain additional infor-
mation regarding the seasonal aspects of changes in the stream
biota populations. Sampling locations will be chosen to allow
further determination of the types and magnitudes of changes that
occur in the stream biota as the creek is subjected to increased
urban runoff loadings. The 1979 biological field studies include
the following elements:
Fish. The seasonal distribution of the fishes in Coyote
Creek from Anderson Dam to the confluence of Silver Creek
will be examined. Whereas the previous work has\relied
heavily upon the use of seines for the collection of fishes,
the future work will be conducted with a Smith Root type
VII electroshocker, or equivalent.
-------
Benthic Macro-invertebrates. The macro-invertebrate sampling
previously conducted at each area will be expanded using
dredges, Surber samplers, Hester-Dendy multiple samplers and
drift and sweep nets. The collection of benthos from repre-
sentative habitats within the stream will be stressed.
-------
SECTION 3
COYOTE CREEK WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Figure 3-1 is a map of the San Francisco Bay Area showing the location
of the Coyote Creek watershed. The Coyote Creek main channel (including the
middle fork) is about 130 kilometers (80 miles) long, drains generally in
a northwesterly direction, and empties int'o the extreme south end of San
Francisco Bay, north of San Jose, California. Several major flow-control
devices occur on Coyote Creek for flood control and groundwater recharge
purposes. The largest are both manmade lakes, Lake Anderson and! Coyote Lake.
Discharges from these lakes are controlled by the Santa Clara Water District
and the water is used for groundwater infiltration in the local south Santa
Clara County area. The watershed itself is about 70 kilometers (45 miles)
long, about 15 kilometers (10 miles) wide, and contains about 80,000 hectares
(200,000 acres). Nearly 15 percent of the watershed (about 12,000 hectares
or 30,000 acres) is a developed urban area. This urban area is part of the
San Jose metropolitan area, and is located along the northwest portion of the
watershed. Figure 3-2 is a detailed map of the Coyote Creek watershed. For
much of its length, Coyote Creek flows in a northwesterly direction along the
western edge of the watershed. The elevation of the watershed ranges from
sea-level to 916 meters (3002 ft). Near the San Jose metropolitan area, the
lower portions of the watershed are characterized by a broad plain on the
west and rolling foothills on the east. Upstream from the metropolitan area,
the waterhed is within an area of rugged hills. A narrow portion of the
watershed between Lake Anderson and the metropolitan area is used for light
agricultural purposes. The upper headwaters of Coyote Creek are|in extremely
rugged terrain with slopes commonly exceeding 30 percent. These upper areas
are characterized by chapparal-covered hills, and gullies, and are mostly
within the Henry Coe State Park. Non-park land in the upper reaches of the
watershed is mostly used for low density cattle grazing. ,' '
Coyote Creek empties into the south terminus of San Francisco Bay.
Typical average daily flows in the northern part of the creek are less than
1.5 cubic meters per second (50 cfs). Major storm flows, however, can approach
30 cubic meters per second (1000 cfs). The flows in the northern part of
the creek are controlled by the two dams. The area of study was llocated
between the furthest downstream dam (Lake Anderson) and the first major con-
fluence (Silver Creek) well within the City of San Jose. Of this 32-kilometer
(20-mile) study section approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) is urbanized and
24 kilometers (15 miles) is non-urbanized. The non-urban section is charac-
terized by relatively low intensity agricultural or open space uses. Sampling
stations were located in both the urban and non-urbanized sections of the
stream for comparison. :
8 -
-------
SAN
FRANCISCO \ HAYWARD
BAY
COYOTE
CREEK
WATERSHED
10 15
miles
0 5 10 15 20 25
i i i [ i i
kilometers
Figure 3-1. San Francisco Bay Area showing the general
location of the Coyote Creek watershed.
-------
0>
o
9>
O
CO
§>
10
-------
HYDROLOGY
Figure 3-3 shows the water releases from Lake Anderson during the period
of study. Water releases during February 1978 and into the first week of
March were quite irregular, varying from almost zero up to about one cubic me-
ter per second (35 cfs). During the rest of March through the end of April,
the releases slowly decreased from one cubic meter per second (35 cfs) down to
about 0.3 cubic meter per second (10 cfs). During May, the releases were
increased quickly to about 2.3 cubic meters per second (80 cfs) where they
were mantained through June, 1978. This spring and early summer period of ^
1978 followed two years' of severe drought in the study area. The first major
rains occurred the previous November and a normal rain season occurred during
the period of study. Typical rainfall in the watershed below Lake Anderson
averages about 33 centimeters (13 inches) per year and can range from 50 to
71 centimeters (20 to 28 inches) per year in the watershed above Lake Anderson.
The severe drought preceeding this study resulted in rains of about one-half
these amounts. The creek conditions were monitored and sampling was initiated
when flows appeared to stabilize. The benthic sampling therefore occurred
about 4 months after the first rains and about 1 month after the period of
irregular creek flows. The creek flows during the first portion of this samp-
ling were consistent but relatively low and increased substantially during
the remaining portion of the sampling period.
Coyote Creek is an important element to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District's groundwater recharge program, and has several groundwater recharge
basins located adjacent to the channel in the study area. There are several
diversion channels which carry water out of Coyote Creek into these recharge
basins and out of the recharge basins into the creek. Therefore, the water
releases as shown in Figure 3-3 do not represent the flow conditions in
Coyote Creek at the sampling stations. Some of the stations were affected by
recharge basin discharges (Coyote Creek water that was previously diverted for
recharge), direct groundwater influx along the creek banks into the creek,
and dry weather flows from storm drain outfalls. The dry weather flows are
mostly composed of domestic water line leaks, residential area irrigation and
car washing water. Some of the stations were also affected by direct ground-
water infiltration and dammed pools in the creeks. Therefore* certain
stretches of the creek can be dry for short periods of time, but downstream
reaches can have flowing water from these other sources. The sampling stations
-were carefully selected so that running water was available during the entire
period of study.
OUTFALL LOCATIONS
Table 3-1 describes the stormwater outfalls and drainage areas along a 20
kilometer (12 mile) reach of Coyote Creek, between the Silver Creek confluence
and the town of Coyote. San Jose's storm drainage maps were examined and the
outfalls and drainage areas were plotted on USGS quad sheetis. Figure 3-4
shows the locations of these 37 outfalls, along with the two areas studied
during the street cleaning demonstration project (Pitt 1979). There are 0.6
to 3 storm drain outfalls per kilometer (1 to 5 per mile) along this stretch
of Coyote Creek. There are other storm drain outfalls downstream from the
Silver Creek confluence but they are not included in this table or figure as
11 :
-------
00
r--
o>
<
Q
0}
Q.
T5
tn
Ol
3
TJ
0)
v>
as
o>
TD
op
CO
O)
U-
DAILY AVERAGE FLOW (m3/sec)- RELEASES FROM ANDERSON LAKE
12
-------
Table 3-1. DESCRIPTION OF STORMDRAIN OUTFALLS AND DRAINAGE AREAS BETWEEN
SILVER CREEK CONFLUENCE AND THE TOWN OF COYOTE ON COYOTE CREEK
Outfall
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Approximate
Outfall
Location
240 m N of Julian
at Julian
60 m S of Julian
240 m S of Julian
60 m S of Santa Clara
360 m S of Santa Clara
60 m N of San Carlos
at E Williams
60 m S of E Williams
150 m S of 1-280
at Martha*
at Story Rd
at W Alma
180 m S of W Alma
at Phelan
300 m S of Phelan .
790 m N of Tully
450 m N of Tully
at Tully
at Tully .
60 m S of Tully
670 m S of Tully
970 m N of Capital Expwy.
at Capital Expwy.
at Capital Expwy.
420 m S of Capital Expwy.
670 m S of Capital Expwy.
1300 m S of Capital Expwy.
1500 m S of Capital Expwy.
1500 m W of 101
1200 m W of 101
670 m W of 101
300 m W of 101
240 m W of 101
1200 m S of 101
1800 m S of 101
near Piercy Road
Outfall
Entry
west
west
east
east
west
east
west
east
west
west
west
east
west
east
east
west
east
east
east
west
west
west
west
east
west
east
east
west
east
west
west
west
west
west
west
west
west
Outfall
Diameter
(cm)
,46
46
69
140
46
53
53
20
76
110
69
76
150
69
170
69
180
91
140
91
91
84
170
110
61
91
46
84
61
30
30
91
30
30 .
140
120
110
Approximate
Drainage Area
(hectares)
10
15
80
40
10
10
30
5
35
10
35
10+
80
40
100
5
80
10,
300
60
30
20
200
30
! 10
40
10
60
15
2
2
60
15
5
: 200
20
25
*Keyes St. study area in previous study (Pitt 1979)
13
-------
1
miles
1 2
kilometers
LEGEND
• Outfall locations
Watershed boundary
~- Stream and creek
KEYES STREET
STUDY AREA
TROPICANA
STUDY AREA
Figure 3-4. Locations of stormwater outfalls within area of study.
14
-------
they are outside of the study area, A few non-listed storm drain outfalls
may be located upstream from the outfalls shown on the map. Although they
may range from 20 to 180 centimeters (8 to 72 inches), most of the outfall
diameters are about 76 centimeters (30 inches) in diameter. The drainage
area per outfall ranges from 2 to 320 hectares (5 to 800 acres) with most
of the outfalls draining areas of less than 40 hectares (100 acres). The
sediment and biological sampling stations located in the urbanized area
were within this 20 kilometer (12 mile) section of the creek. Baseline
(non-urban) monitoring stations were located upstream of those outfalls but
below Anderson Dam.
SAMPLING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
Table 3-2 lists the monitoring stations studied during the first phase
of this project. Also shown are the distances from the creek terminus at
San Francisco Bay and elevation values for each station. The activities con-
ducted at each station are also listed.
Table 3-2. SAMPLING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
Distance From
Creek Mouth
Name (Kilometers)
Approx.
, Elevation
(in)
Water Quality
Samples
(March 1977)
Biological ,
and Sediment
Samples
(March- June 1978)
Non-urban area, below Lake Anderson;
Cochran
Miramonte
Riverside
Coyote
Metcalfe
Tennant
60.1
54.7
51.2
46.9
45.4
41.9
Urban area, above Silver Creek;
Hellyer
Tully
Derbe
William
Tripp
34.6
29.6
28.0
24.6
21.9
Urban area, below Silver Creek;
Berryessa
Trimble
Dixon
20.1
15.3
6.4
120
95
85
75
70
65
45
30
25
20
20
15
5
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
-------
Figure 3-5 shows the elevation of Coyote Creek and the locations of the
water quality, sediment and biological sampling stations. Stations above
35 kilometers (22 miles) from the creek mouth were located upstream of the
San Jose urban area. Table 3-3 shows the drainage area breakdown for each
station. The urban stations have between 3 and 4% (1700 to 2500 hectares
or 4000 to 6000 acres) of their total drainages urbanized, while the non-
urban stations have less than 0.1% of their drainage areas urbanized.
Table 3-3. WATERSHED AREA ABOVE SAMPLING STATIONS '.
Total Area
(hectares)
Urban Area
(hectares)
Non-Urban Area
(hectares)
Percent Urban
Non-Urban Stations
Cochran
49,510
<5
49,510
0.01
Miramonte
50,260
<5
50,260
0.01
Me teal fe
52,360
<50
52,360
0.1
Urban
Derbe
56,300
1740
54,560
3.2
Stations
William
56; 920
2150
54i770
3.9
Tripp
57,260
2460 1
54,800
4.5
The following list briefly describes the conditions encountered at each
sampling station:
• Cochran. The substrate was characterized by cobbles and gravel,
with some sand. Riffle and flowing pool habitat predominates.
The water temperature is depressed due to dam water releases. The
banks are tree-lined and the creek is heavily shaded. , The stream
width varied from 5 to 10 m (15 to 30 ft). Depth was about 1 m
(3 ft) and flow was less than 0.5 m/sec (1.5 ft/sec).
• Miramonte. The substrate at this location was also character-
ized by cobbles and gravel, with some sand; habitat consisted of
riffles and flowing pools. Some trees were present, but the area
was generally open. The water temperature was still depressed
due to dam water releases. The creek was about 0.5 m (1.5 ft)
deep, 3 to 5 m (9 to 15 ft) wide and flowed at about 1; m/sec (3
ft/sec).
I
• Riverside. The creek at this location flows along a diversion
channel adjacent to agricultural lands and a golf course. The
channel was 2 to 3 m (6 to 9 ft) wide, 1 m (3 ft) deep! and flowed
at about 0.5 m/sec (1.5 ft/sec). The creek was mud-bottomed with
some cobbles being present along the shoreline. Bankside vegeta-
tion was limited to grasses and the creek had little shading.
16
-------
-8
-g
o
CO
N
O
O5
•s
UJ
AHVdNnoa vauv Nvaun
J3A||3H
J3A||S •
O
CO
O
tf)
dduj..
essaAjjag -
•8
_o
UOXJQ •
—r~
o
8
a:
o
UJ
q
8
u.
O
O
o
cc
LL
LU
O
2
o
°4->
ca
tt
"o.
CD
c
o
s
8
c
CO
o
'•4->
CO
£
IO
CO
2
3
8
o
NOI1VA313
<
t/5
17
-------
• Coyote. This section of stream was bordered by agricultural
land, was 5 to 8 m (15 to 25 ft) wide, and generally less than
0.5 m (1.5 ft) deep. The creek was flowing at a velocity of
about 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec). Substrate was comprised of sand and
cobbles overlain with silt. The stream banks were lined with
shrubs and trees, and the creek was partially shaded.
• Metcalfe. The creek substrate was cobble and gravel with some
sand. The study site was generally unshaded, and had riffle and
flowing pool habitats. The creek was about 0.5 m (1.5 ft) deep,
3 to 8 m (9 to 25 ft) wide and flowed at about 0.5 m/sec (1.5
ft/sec).
• Tennant. This section of the creek was comprised of pools, long
runs, and riffles. The creek was from 2 to 15 m (6 to :45 ft) wide
and ranged from 0.2 to over 1 m (0.5 to over 3 ft) in depth. Deep-
er portions may exist in some pool areas. The creek wa!s flowing
at velocities up to about 1 m/sec (3 ft/sec). The substrate was
primarily comprised of gravel and cobbles, with an accumulation of
silt being present in the pools. The banks were bordered by gras-
ses and trees and the creek was partially shaded.
• Hellyer. The width of Coyote Creek at this station ranged from
about 2 m (6 ft) along short riffles to about 12 m (36 ft) along
slowly flowing pools.. Substrate ranged from gravel to silt and
mud, and the depth varied from 0.2 to about 1 m (0.5 to! about 3
ft). Portions of the banks were tree-lined and shaded.:
• Tully. This reach of Coyote Creek consisted entirely of pool
habitat. Much debris and downfall were accumulated at the upstream
side of the Tully Road Bridge which effectively dammed the stream.
Very little flow was observed downstream of that location. The
pools were mud-bottomed, 8 to 10 m (24 to 30 ft) wide, and appeared
to be 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) deep. The banks were tree-lined and
well shaded. :
• Derbe. This portion of the creek was mostly slowly flowing pools,
with some short riffles. The bottom was gravel and sand with some
silt. The creek was about 0.8 m (2.5 ft) deep and 1 to 3 m (3 to
9 ft) wide. Much debris and downfall was in the water and it was
well shaded.
• William. Habitat along this reach of the stream consisted prima-
rily of slowly flowing pools. Some short riffles were present in
upstream areas. The water in this area was markedly clearer than
at the upstream stations. The width was about 2 to 3 m ^(6 to 9 ft)
and the stream ranged to about 0.5 m (1.5 ft) in depth. The flow
was approximately 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec). Bottom substrate consisted
of mud, silt, and detritus.
18
-------
Tripp. Here the creek had sand and silt substrate, with some
gravel. It was mostly characterized by flowing pools with some
short riffles. The stream was 0.5 to 1 m (1.5 to 3 ft) deep and 2
to 4 m (6 to 12 ft) wide. It was tree lined and well shaded.
Berryessa. Pool habitat was dominant upstream of Berryessa Road
and riffle habitat predominated downstream. The creek ranged
from 3 to 5 m (9 to 15 ft) in width and varied from 0.2 to about
1 m (0.5 to about 3 ft) in depth. The flow was about 0.3 m/sec
(1 ft m/sec). The substrate was chiefly comprised of gravel and
sand, overlain with silt. The banks were tree-lined.
Trimble. The .creek was dominated by pool habitat upstream of
Trimble Road, whereas riffle habitat was predominant downstream.
The creek was about 3 m (9 ft) wide, its depth ranged from about
0.1 to 0.3 m (0.3 to 1 ft) and the flow was about 0.5 m/sec (1.5
ft/sec). The substrate consisted of sand, gravel and some cob-
bles all overlain with varying amounts of silt. Although some
trees were present, the stream banks were generally bordered by
herbaceous vegetation. '
Dixon. This station is located in a tidal channel, just upstream
from the mouth of the creek and consisted entirely of flowing pool
habitat. The creek flow is influenced by the tidal action of San
Francisco Bay and is contaminated by the downstream discharge from
the San Jose-Santa Clara wastewater treatment facility (an advanced
secondary sewage treatment facility having a capacity of about 1.5
billion liters per day, 400 MGD). The creek was about 10 m (30 ft)
wide, 1.5 m (4.5 ft) deep at low tide, and mud-bottomed.
19
-------
SECTION 4
CHARACTERIZATION OF .URBAN RUNOFF
Runoff water quality data obtained from the street cleaning demonstration
study (Pitt 1979) were examined to estimate urban runoff yields and chemical
characteristics. These data were analyzed by an equilibrium watet chemistry
computer program to estimate the specific chemical compounds and to estimate
those that would remain soluble and those that would settle out into the re-
ceiving water sediments. This information is presented in Tables !4-l and 4-2
and shows that most of the urban runoff pollutants are soluble (except for
possibly lead and phosphate) and would be expected to be carried in the water
column of the receiving water. However, almost all (95%) of the inorganic
lead compounds expected in urban runoff (mostly forms of lead carbonate and
lead phosphate) are expected to occur as insoluble particulates and, depending
upon their size, may settle out in the sewerage or into the receiving water
sediments. Two others that may settle out are chromium and phosphate. This
was substantiated in the field studies by the large concentrations' of lead
that were found in the urban creek sediments. The soluble forms of the other
parameters monitored are mostly expected to be in the ionic form.
The information presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 and data obtained from the
Santa Clara County area-wide wastewater managment plan (Metcalf anil Eddy 1978)
were used to estimate the urban area unit pollutant yields for, the' study area.'
Table 4-3 presents these urban runoff yields on a pounds per, acre per year
basis. The estimated annual urban runoff yields affecting the monitoring
stations in Coyote Creek are also shown. The non-urban stations are affected
by substantially smaller quantities of the monitored pollutants. These non-
urban stations are affected by runoff from undeveloped and agricultural areas
whereas the urban stations are affected by urban areas in addition'to these
undeveloped and agricultural areas. The pollutant yields in the creek affect-
ing the urbanized stations are all substantially greater than the'quantities
affecting the non-urban stations. As an example, the total.solids!discharges .
affecting the creek in the urban areas are more than one hundred times greater
than the total solids discharges affecting the non-urban areas. The lead
discharges affecting the urban areas were also several thousand times greater
than the lead discharges affecting the non-urban areas. !
20
-------
Table 4-1.
FLOW-AVERAGED SOLUBLE URBAN RUNOFF CONCENTRATIONS
Parameters
Date of Storms:
Total Ca*1^
Ca-H-
CaS04
CaHC03+
Total Mg
Mg-H-
MgS04
MgHC03+
Total K
K+
Total Na
Na+
Total Cu
Cu-H-
CuC03
CuHPfy
CuOW-
Total Cd
Cd-H-
CdS04
CdCl+
Total Zn
Zn-H-
ZnPOt
ZnSOA
Total Pb (2>3)
Pb-H-
PbC03
Total Cr
Cr(OH),
CrOlH-
Total CO,
Total HCOo
HC03
Keyes Study
Area
3/15 and 3/23 and
16/77 24/77
2.8
2.8
<0« 1
<0» 1
1.4
1.4
0.1
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.1
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
0.11
0.11
0.003
<0.001
0.27
<0.001
0.005
0.01
0.02
<0.001
0.006
16
0.006
19
18.5
1.4
3.9
3.8
0.5
3.0
2.9
9.2
9.2
0.04 "
0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.001
0.001
0.004
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
0.32
0.31
<0.001
0.02
0.76
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
<0.001
0.055
150
0.008
Troplcana Study Area Min.
3/15 and 3/23 and 4/:
16/77 24/77 5/
11
10.0
0.7
3.9
3.8
0.5
" 1.9
1.9
14
14
0.02
0.01
0.004
0.007
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.10
0.10
<0.001
0.005
0.22
0.003
0.02
0.01
0.02
.<0.001
0.013
37
0.01
15
14.0
1.5
0.4
6.2
5.9
1.1
0.2
3.4
3.4
27
27
0.013
0.01
0.002
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
0.002
0.001
<0.001
0.12
0.12
<0.001
0.009
0.20
0.002
0.02
0.009
0.02
<0.001
62
0.01
)0 and
'1/77
16
15.5
1.7
4.8
4.6
0.9
3.5
3.5
23
23
0.05
0.05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.002
•CO. 001
<0.001
0.27
0.26
<0.001
0.02
0.66
<0.001
<0.001
0.02
<0.001
0.03
<0.001
<0.001
2.8
2.8
<0» 1
<0« 1
1.4
1.4 ,'
0.1
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.1
0.013.
0.01
<0.001
-------
Table 4-1. (concluded)
Parameters Keyes Study Area
Total S04 6.3
S04- * 6.2
Total OL 3.9
Cl - 3.9
Total ortho F0« 3.3
H2PO/- * 2.7
HgHP04 <0.001
Total NO, 0.5
N03- J 0.5
Total Hg <0.001
Kjeldahl N 8.0
pH.pH units 7.0
ORP, eV 135
leap, *C is
spec. cond. , 33
uahos/ca
Turbidity, NTU 43
Total Solids iso
Total dissolved 34
solids
Suspended solids 110
Volatile sus. solids
Disolved oxygen 6.5-9.4
BOD5 30
COD 130
TOC - 34
18
17
12
12
0.2
0.2
<0.001
0.9
0.9
0.0001
3.6
6.7
140
15
100
86
680
110
570
40
7.4-9.9
22
350
140
Troplcana Study Area
15
14
12
12
2.2
0.9
<0.001
1.5
1.5
<0.0001
3.1
6.9
130
15
80
37
180
83
97
7.4
25
77
19
26
24
16
16
0.5
0.3
<0.008
0.5
0.5
•CO.OOOl
3.8
7.0
110,
15
120
38
110
66
41
5
7.5-8.6
17
160
48
27
25
18
18
6.0
4.4
<0.001
0.3
0.3
0.0002
15
6.3
78
15 '
130
41
380
160
220
28
260
290
Mln.
. 6.3
6.2
3.9
3.9
0.2
0.2
<0.001
0.3
0.3
<0. 0001
3.1
6.3
78
15
33
37
110
34
41
5
6.5
17
77
19
Max.
27
25
18
18
6.0
4.4
0.008
1.5
1-5
0.0002
15
7.0
140
15
130
86
680
160
570
40
9.9
30
350 :
290
Average
18
17
12
12
2.4
1.7
0.002
0.7
0.7
<0.0001
6.7
6.8
120
15
93
49
300
91
210
23
8
24
200
110
(1) CaHPO,
(2) PbCO,
(3) Pb,(P04)2
The "total" values represent all valence states.
22
-------
Table 4-2. PRIMARY DISTRIBUTION OF METALS AND LIGANDS
IN URBAN RUNOFF (%)
Parameters
bye. Study
Area
Tropicana
Study Are.
Kin. Hax. Average
.... - — 3(W - 3/" " "«'"d 3/" " '"
Calclua:
C.*f
C.S04
CaHCO,
CaHPO. (a »olid)
total
Magnesium:
ME**
KgS04
MgHCO,+
Total
Pot** si urn:
Sodium:
Copper:
C"++
CuCO,
CuHP04
CuOH+
Total
Zinc:
In**
ZnP04
ZnS04
Total
L""d4+
PbCO,
PbCoS (a .olid)
Pb,(P04)2(« .olid)
Total
ChroBiun:
Cr(OH^*
Total
Carbonate:
HCO,"
H,CO,
PECO, (a *olld)
Total
Sultate:
so4-
CaS04
Total
Chloride:
Cl"
Fho.phate :
Pb,(P04>,
(a .olid?
H,P04
CaHP84 (a .olid)
HgHP04
Total
Nitrate:
98.4
98.40
97.9
1.2
99.1(2)
99.9
100.0
54.6
24.4
15.3
J2.5
2.9
99.7
97.5
1.3
98.8
1.3
<1
98.0
99.3
100.0
100.0
99.6
99.6
97.8
1.0
1.1
99.9
100.0
20.3
79.0
<1
99.3
100.0
97.3
2.2
99.5
96.8
2.7
99.5
99.8
99.9
54.5
32.1
10.6
1.9
99.1
97.6
2.2
99.8
1.3,
2.1
96.1
99.5
100.0
100.0
14.1
84.3
1.4
99.8
91.9
5.5
2.3
99.7
100.0
98.4
98.4
100.0
91.0
1.8
6.5
99.3
96.7
2.4
99.1(3)
99.9
99.9
57.8
21.5
17.9
97.2'."
97.6
1.9
99.5
1.5
6.4
99.0<6>
100.0
100.0
81.6
17.7
99.3<«>
94.2
3.1
2.4
99.7
100.0
23.2
27.9
38.2
99.311
100.0
95.0
2.9
1.0
1.0
99.0
95.2
3.7
1.1
100.0
91.8
99.9
68.0
13.0
17.1
1.5
99.6
96.6
3.0
99.6
1.2
8.0 ,
89.8
0 (71
99.0tT)
100.0
<1
100.0
60.2
38.2
92.0
4.0
100.0
<1
62.1
36.0
1 2
n.l"
100.0
96.8
3.2
<1
<1
100.0
95.9
3.9
<1
99.8
99.7
99.9
95.0
4.5
<1
99.5(4>
96.3
3.1.
99.4(5>
<1
<1
<1
98.8
98.8
<1
99.8
99.8
_
92.2
4.5
99;t9.5 97.1
100.0 130.0 100.0
Other paraMtar* (all <1I) are a* follow*:
(1) CaHCO and CaS04 (7) H>OH*
(2) HgHCO, and MgHPO, (8) CaHCOj and MgHCOj
(3) MgHCOj (9) KaC03
(4) CuSO,3 (10) KaS04
(5) ZnHP04 (11) CuHP04 and ZnHPO,
(6) BiCi O" "
23
-------
a.
OOOvOcocsJoO
CTs C\J r-l
VO CN1 r-f
oo
o o
RJ B
o CM
C I
•W I 1-1
ca | a)
•u o
OT
VO <— I i— <
O cs|
O
&?
•H
•H I 4->
2 I
•—I r—I i—i ,-H O
—< i-l O O O O O
P P P. P* P. P POP
V V V
V V V V V
CJ
W
ctf o
<-(>-( r-H O
1—1 •"•' O O O O
*-< o o o o o o
VVVVVVVVVV
Si
g
I Rj
I U
O
o
«—I »—it—t O
<-< •-* o o o o
•-I O O O O O O
-H O
-H 60
OO O-i
*—( i—I vO O
oo in —i —i ^ ,H o
CM ,-1 i-i o O O O
"H O
J3 PM
ctf I
•H M 3
B 0) -H
24
-------
SECTION 5 .
SOURCES OF URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTANTS
One of the major problem areas yet to be sufficiently addressed concern-
ing urban runoff is knowing the relative contributions from different pollu-
tant sources in the watershed to the outfall yield. Sources that are further
from the storm drainage system and require' overland flow have a very low yield
of most pollutants when compared with parking lots or street surf aces that are
impervious and located adjacent to the drainage system. Table 5-1 presents _ the
preliminary results from an additional phase of this project, which is examin-
ing potential sources of urban runoff pollutants. This phase of the study
involves collecting runoff samples during rainstorms from different areas
within San Jose. These are all small areas and include different types of
building roofs, parking lots, and gutter flows. Rainfall and outfall samples
are also being collected for chemical analyses. As expected, rain in most
cases had the lowest associated pollutant concentrations. The parking lot
and gutter flows had the greatest concentrations of many of the monitored _
pollutants. Monitored puddles' in a city park had much greater concentrations
of total solids, specific conductance, and nitrates than a:ny of the other,
samples.
Table 5-2 is a generalization of urban runoff pollutant sources for
common pollutants. No one source area is expected to contribute significant
quantities of most of the pollutants, but some of the areas are expected to be
quite important. Street surfaces are expected to be responsible for signifi-_
cant contributions of many heavy metals. Oxygen demanding materials and nutri-
ents are thought to originate mostly from landscaped and vacant areas. Table
5-3 is also a generalization and attempts to show the major contributors _
affecting these major areas and the approximate annual average delivery yields
from each of the source areas to the outfall yield. Vacant lots and landscaped
areas typically are the most pervious surfaces in an urban area and are also
located farthest from the urban drainage system; therefore,, they contribute
little flow. Landscaped and vacant areas make up almost half of the total area
in the San Jose urban area. However, only 5%. of the rainfall falling on these
areas is expected to contribute to the outfall flow. Similarly, .very little
of the potential pollutant yield from these areas is expected to affect the^
outfall. Rooftops, which make up 15-20% of the urban area, are also located a
relatively long distance away from the storm sewerage system. Rooftops are
directly connected to the storm sewerage system and require considerable over-
land flow. Therefore, the outfall runoff yield from rooftops is expected to
be about 30%. Sidewalks, which make up about 5% of the urban area, are located
closer to the storm drainage system, but some of their drainage flow is direct-
ed toward adjacent landscaped or other pervious area. Therefore, only about
25
-------
Table 5-1* URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/1, unless otherwise noted)
FROM iMAJOR AREAS
Parameter
pH, pH Units
Specific Conductance,
tuahos/ca)
Turbidity, XTU
Total Solids
BODj
COO
0-P04
Total P04
KJeldahl S
NH3
K03
S
S04
As
Zn
Pb
Cr
Cu
Total Colifora Bacteria
(KPK/lOOal)
Fecal Colifora Bacteria
(MPSVlOOnl)
Fecal Strep. Sacteria
(XPS/lOOad.)
Fecal Colifora/Fecal
Strep. Ratio
Outfall
7.8
185
29
162
8
97
0.23
0.34
1.52
0.25
0.74
4
13
<0.01
0.06
0.08
0.009
0.013
>2400
>2400
>2400
•
Cutter Flow
7.5
130
100
235
13
172
0.12
0.31
2.41 ,,
0.42
0.42
2
7
<0.01
0.14
0.67
0.049
0.029
>2400
920
>2400
<0.4
Parking
lot
7.0
45
26
340
22
176
0.47
0.49
1.47
0.35
0.13
<1
<1
0.02
0.23
1.09
0.071
0.046
540
350
>2400
<0.2
Park
Puddles
7.3
2400
21
2140
3
69
0.32
0.42
1.32
1.23
285
15
38
0.10
0.01
0.035
0.010
0.031
49
49
920
0.5
Commercial Residential
Tar and Composition
Gravel Soof Shinele !Roof o.«_
7.5 6.5
155
1
186
7
131
0.02
0.07
4..37
1.06
0.22 i
5
1 21
<0.01
0.08
0.019
<0.005
0.11 :
170
9
17
0.5
1
11.2
<1
13 '
3
19.
0.08
0.10
, 0.71
0.50
0.09
a'
a
OJOl
0.18
0.017
<0.005
<0.005
<2
<2
920
<0.002
nm±H
6.4
10.4
a
30
3
12
0.03
0.03
0.64
0.36
O.C9
a
a
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.005
0.010
8
2
<2
»
26
-------
CO
w
CJ
p^
O
CO
c^
£5
^3
g
h-I
nJ
0
PM
£j
o
«
g
3
3
o
g
<<
^
M
h— 1
M
CO
1-4
M
[2;
H
H
O
C^I
1
m
CU
rH
f>
cd
H
r-l 13
cd -H
•H r-l
H K O ^N
4-i co cu M-I
^3 CO 4-1 M-l
4J S 13 CO O
o T> c cd P
C cd !s a
M «
N— '
c
o
•H
4-1
o co
3 0)
V-l 4-1
4J -H
CO CO
0
0
C.3
CO
cu
O 4-*
M ri 13
3 cd C
o o cd
co cd i-J
^
4-1
(3
cd
3 0)
r-l CU
H cd co
o o cd
PM co cu
4-1 C <
C cd
cd tJ
o
: -H
*C If
00 -H CO
t 1 fc^> Jj
co vi o
cd iJ .
Id
4-1
0
cu
4-1 CO
O 4-1 CU
PM 0) 0
cu cd
1 1 '[ [
4-1 V4
CO S
CO
CO
ex
o
4-1
o
Q
pH
CO
J 1
+J
C
cd
4-1
J5
n o
e "w
O M-l
I °
si
X
X
X
•
•r-
^
V.
*
.X
•H
13
1
cu
o
PJ n
0)
60 -M
>. •
c§ 1
X!
X
1
•
*
'
.
;
XI
X
\
•
iS
X!
X!
CO
i
,
&
X!
-
CO
C
•r
C.
•r
43
!-i
1
)
^
*
•
PH
X!
' 27
-------
Table 5-3. MAJOR URBAN AREAS AND DELIVERY YIELDS TO OUTFALL (Percent)
Pollutant
Contributors
Custfall
Pfcclpltation
Tire Hear
Lawn and
Landscaped Areas
5Z
X
X
Vacant Lots Rooftops
5% 30*
X X
X X
Sidewalks
45%
X
X
Parking Lots
502
X
X
i Street Surface
; 75%
X
X
Auto Exhaust Participates
Other Auto Use
(Fluid Drips, Wear Prod.)
Vegetation Litter
Construction Erosion
Other Litter
Bird Feces
Dog Feces
Cat Feccs
Fertilizer Use
Pesticide Use
(Adjacent)
X
(Adjacent)
28
-------
half of the runoff yield from sidewalks enters the receiving water flow. Park-
ing lots in the urban area make up about 7% of the area and are mostly paved
and impervious. Again, some of the runoff from the parking lots (especially
at homes and apartments) is directed towards adjacent pervious areas, and
only about half of the parking lot runoff is expected to reach the receiving
waters. Street surfaces, however, are located close to the storm drainage
system and are almost impervious. Street surfaces are about 15-20% of the
urban area and most of the runoff originating'from the street surfaces is
expected to reach the outfall. Some of the street surface flow, however, does
not reach the outfall because of infiltration in streets in poor condition and
evaporation. Dustfall and precipitation affect all of these major area compo-
nents. Dustfall, however, is not a major pollutant source but is mostly a
mechanism for pollutant transport. Host of the dustfall nionitored in an urban
area is resuspended particulate matter from street surfaces or wind erosion
products from vacant areas. Some point source air polluta.nt emissions also
contribute to dustfall pollution. The bulk of the dustfall, however, is con-
tributed by the other major pollutant sources.
Automobile tire wear is a substantial source of zinc in urban runoff and
is mostly deposited on street surfaces and adjacent areas. About half of the
settleable particulates lost due to tire wear settle on the street and the re-
maining material settles within about 6 meters (20 feet) of the roadway. Auto
exhaust particulates are also important pollutant contributors for heavy
metals, especially lead, and mostly affect street surfaces! and adjacent areas.
Other automobile use pollutant contributions are associated with fluid losses
by drips, spills and mechanical wear products. Other heavy metals and asbestos
are important pollutants associated with these other automobile losses. Most
of these pollutants directly affect parking lots and street surfaces, with some
material landing on adjacent areas due to wind transportation.
Vegetation litter can be a significant pollutant component in almost all
of these source areas. Leaf fall on streets in San Jose is an important
street surface pollutant in the fall months. Animal .fecess can contribute rel-
atively important nutrient and bacteria quantities in the urban area, but it
mostly affects vacant and landscaped areas. Fertilizer and pesticide use
is mostly associated with landscaped areas, but large amounts of pesticides
can be used to control plant growths on impervious surfaces. Fertilizers may
be used in large quantities in road maintenance operations.
Table 5-4, based on preliminary results, estimates the percentage contri-
bution of the various pollutants from the different source areas studied.
Rooftops are seen to contribute the least amount of pollutants in almost all
cases, while the pervious areas can contribute the majority of the solids,
oxygen demanding materials, and some nutrients. Parking lots, street sur-
faces, and sidewalks are expected to contribute the majority of the heavy
metals, bacteria, and some nutrients to the total outfall runoff yield.
Most of the street surface dust and dirt material (by weight) are local
soil erosion products, while some material is contributed from motor vehicle
emissions and wear. Minor contributions are made by wear of the street sur-
faces for smooth streets in good condition. The specific makeup of street
surface contaminants is a function of many site conditions and varies widely.
29
-------
1
o
o
H
CO
^c
1
CO
S3
O
PS 'U'
<: c
O 0)
c4 P-<
pt, ^^/
CO CO
s o
• O >-3
'M w
H M
M
M ft.
py* yv(
H O
fe S3
o 5
1
10
QJ
•JJJ
cO
H
CO
ft
o
o
a
CO
TJ 4-1
CU Td O
ft P! 1-3
CO (t
U 4-1
CO CO £3
C Q) O
. i ^^ ^
•H CO
Ai 4J
>-l O
CO h4
CO
0)
CJ CO
cO A!
CO CU
4-1 -H
o) co
cu
4J "S
CO CO
4-)
(U
3
M
cO
Pn
•— < i— ' CN >— 1 CN V V i— I
ooooiomoioooor-i— ICNO
omooooo"— irHi— iu"ioooo
OiOi^iAiOOOOLO ,O i— t O O O O
J_
r-l
CO CO 0
*O ^J . it i
•^ t-H -i-l
O CO^C^'^ 'o
CO PH p< W CO CJ
rH O rH i-H rH rH
CO u"V3 CO cO cO CO
4-1 Q Q 4J 4J 4-1 CO CO4J -< • 1-1- O
v v en
V
i
\
i-< • i— 1 CO
V V V
m co o
V V rH
S\
in in o
CTt CTi VD
/\ A. /S>
O
•H -i CJ M CO M
0) CU CU'
4J rH 4-1 rH 4-1
CJ CO CJ CO CJ
cfl O cO O cfl
p*[' . rv.
30
-------
Many pollutant,sources are specific to a particular area and on-going activi-
ties. For example, iron oxides are associated with welding operations and
strontium, used in the production of flares and fireworks, would probably be
found on the streets in greater quantities around holiday times or at the
scenes of traffic accidents.
Relative deposition values for the different pollutants from the various
source areas are summarized in Table 5-5. These deposition values are the
percentage of the total pollutant deposited in the urban areas. The deposition
rates are much larger than the pollutant yields to the outfall. As a compari-
son, Table 5-6 shows the relative yields from these source areas to the total
outfall runoff yield. The deposition rates for some of the pollutants are
shown to be relatively high for some of the impervious areas, but these source
yields are reduced substantially when infiltration is considered. Automobile
activity is responsible for most of the heavy metal yield in the runoff and
about half of the total solids yield. Vegetation sources contribute most of '
the oxygen demand materials, while dog feces and fertilizer use are expected
to contribute most of the nitrogen in urban runoff.
Table 5-7 summarizes expected San Jose urban runoff characteristics.
These conditions could vary substantially for other areas of the country
but do point out important considerations in urban runoff. If all of the
total solids pollutant depositions in an urban area were added up, only about
1/3 would reach the outfall. Only about 10% of the nutrients and oxygen
demanding .materials deposited may affect the receiving water quality, but most
of the heavy metals deposited in the area would affect the: receiving waters.
The remaining deposited pollutants that are washed off of the source areas and
do not reach the outfall would be accumulated in other areas in the urban envi-
ronment. The most significant pollutant "sinks" in the urban area are expected
to be soils, groundwater, and plants. As an example, man}' studies have shown
significant concentrations of heavy metals in roadside soils and vegetation
(Farwer and Lyon 1977; McMullen and Faoro 1977; Olson and Skogerboe 1975, and
Pitt and Amy 1973). As noted earlier, much of this material (about 15% of the
total deposition of total solids) can be associated with dustfall. Most of
this dustfall however is resuspended particulates from the streets and vacant
areas and is not an actual source of urban runoff pollutants, except for point
source air pollution emissions that may settle out.
31
-------
•u
c
0)
u
OJ
•£•
co
S3
O
I-I
M
CO
O
PU
Q
U
O
erf
:=>
0
CO
o
s
u
H
^4
•J
w
in
1
m
n O rH CM ,-(
•H 00 \/
•H O O ,H ^|
V iH . ON V \/
•n i-i , m iHrHOtHO
i-i v v v M
o m o o o CM m
i-H C-J st CM
Q) :
d co
3 g p
4J (U C -H CO M
2 co-an-Hy S cS S N
'H Q) 4J 4J -H Pm Pn -H Vl
Jj -H 34-1 QJ OM -H O CO CU'JJ
PH H UW pq Q CJ En O
32
-------
o
00
o
oo
V
V
,0
•P-l
O
o
V
V
o
cs
o
t-1
o
CO
m
Q
O
pa
rH 05
tfl T3
4-J -H
O rH
H O
in
o
c
o
•H
4-1
CO
4->
•H
(X
•H
O
cu
n
PM
O
m
•H
H
o
CO
m
CO
cu
CO
•Sp
rt 4J
cu
o cu
^ 4_?
«al co
C
o
•H
j-l
rt
JJ
0)
W)
cu
•H
4->
30
P 0
*J i-t
CO CO
C 0
0 H
o w
CO
cu
o
0)
fe
"2
•H
M
CO
cu
o
g"
n
CO
cu
o
O)
-------
34
-------
SECTION 6
EFFECTS OF URBAN RUNOFF
RUNOFF AND RECEIVING WATER QUALITY DURING STORMS
Table
-1 showed the ranges and average runoff pollutant concentrations for
tor^stor^ in sL ^^^^^£*
Freshwater public supply: Cd, Pb*
Irrigation: Cd
*The maximum monitored value was greater than ten times the minimum recom-
mended criterion. 35
-------
Table 6-1. RUNOFF WATER QUALITY COMPARED TO BENEFICIAL USE CRITERIA
Parameter3 Ove
— ' ..!-
PHUni«) 6'°
Teap. («C) 14
DO 5.4
Turbidity
(NTU) 4.8
TDS 22
SS 15
N°3 0.3
*04 0.2
Cl 3.9
S04 6.3
N« 2.1
Cd <0.002
* 0.005
J 0.01
'•> 0.10
Kg <0.0001
50Dj 17
"
^
7.6
16.5
12.8
130
376
845
1.5
17.6
17.6
27
26.8
0.04
0.04
0.09
1.5
0.0006
0.55
31
"X.
6.7
16
8.0
49
150
240
0.7
2.4
12
18
15
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.4
<0.0001
0.18
24
Irrigation
4.5* 9.0
Native
500 •» 5000
mg/1 aax.
Narrative
Narrative
^
-
_
Narrative
0.01 * 0.05
Bg/1 max.
0.1 » l.o
•g/1 aax.
0.02 •» 5.0
ag/1 max.
5.0 * 10.0
-
-
_
Beneficial Use Criteriab
Livestock Wildlife Aquatic Life
6.0 •» 9.0 6.0 » 9.0
desired desired
~ Maintain Narrative
natural
pattern
Usually 5.0
tig/1 mln.
Small change
Narrative
80 mg/1
450 mg/1 (in-
cluding N02)
"" ' —
_ _
_
_ " _
0.05 ag/1 - 0.004 .. 0>03
»ax. for soft
, •» hard water
1.0 ag/1 - 0.03 ^f!
°'5 "8/1 - Narrative
0.1 Bg/1 - 0.03 .^
0.001 mg/l Narrative 0.00005 mg/i
25 «8/l - Narrative
10 Bg/1
! _
Marine
Life
6.5 •» 8.5
desired :
Narrative0,
6.0 mg/1 ,
min. v i
_
'
0.0003
Bg/1
Bg/1 0.01 Bg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.05 ag/1
Narrative
0.1 mg/1
0.1 ng/1 ;
Narrative
Source.: KcKee and Wolf 1963; USEPA 1973; USEPA 1975.
i measured in mg/1 unless otherwt.e noted.
-.-StS—M,. s,;.
36
-------
is designed to prevent eutrophication* in receiving waters. Average and
maximum cadmium concentrations exceeded the irrigation, aquatic life, marine,
and freshwater supply criteria. Maximum copper and chromium concentrations
in the runoff also exceeded the aquatic life and marine criteria. All of
the lead concentrations in the runoff exceeded the livestock, aquatic life,
and freshwater supply criteria by large amounts. The maximum runoff mercury
concentrations exceeded the aquatic life criterion by a large amount. The
average and maximum ,zinc runoff concentrations exceeded the marine life cri-
terion. All of the observed BOD^ concentration values in the runoff exceeded
the aquatic life criterion. As these data show, those parameters most poten-
tially responsible for water quality impairment are solids, cadmium, lead,
and mercury for aquatic life uses; orthophosphates for marine life; ortho-
phosphates for recreational use (eutrophication); and lead for freshwater
public supply.
Preliminary data show that high suspended solids and phosphate concen-
trations in the non-urban area during wet weather can also greatly exceed the
aquatic life and marine life criteria, respectively. The phosphate concentra-
tion may also exceed the recreation criteria.
Table 6-2 presents a comparison between secondary sanitary wastewater
effluent and urban runoff for the study areas. The average and peak one hour
runoff concentrations observed and average secondary sanitary wastewater
effluent concentrations are shown along with the ratios between them. The
sanitary wastewater treatment facility is a modern, advanced secondary treat-
ment plant serving the study area. The short term effects of urban runoff on
a receiving water occur (by definition) during and immediately following a
runoff event: short-term effects are associated with instantaneous concentra-
tions. A comparison between the urban runoff average concentrations and the
sanitary wastewater treatment plant effluent average concentrations shows that
the concentrations of lead, suspended solids, COD, cadmium, TOC, turbidity,
zinc, chromium, and BOD5 are all higher in the runoff than in the sanitary
wastewater effluent. Copper and Kjeldahl nitrogen, in addition to the pre-
viously listed parameters, have greater runoff peak concentrations than the
wastewater average concentrations. Therefore, urban runoff may have more
important short-term effects on receiving waters than average treated sanitary
wastewater effluent.
The annual yield for the different sources gives a measure that indicates
potential long-term problems. Table 6-2 also shows the annual sanitary waste-
water treatment plant effluent yield expressed in weight per year (derived
from monthly average concentrations and effluent quantities), and the calcu-
lated street surface portion of the annual.urban runoff yield, also expressed
in weight per year for a similar service area. On an annual basis, the total
orthophosphate and Kjeldahl nitrogen yields associated with the street surface
runoff are less than 4% of the total sanitary wastewater treatment plant effluent
*Excessive algae growth that may become a nuisance.
37
-------
Table 6-2. COMPARISON OF URBAN RUNOFF, STREET SURFACE YIELDS AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
Runoff
Concentration
ng/1 (ng/1 unless otherwise
noted)
Paraocter
.,+
.^•H-
Na+
Cl~
SO "
HC03
KOi
BOB-.
sui/E
COO
KH
Ortho PO*
Total Solids
TDSd
Suspended Solids
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
HS
Specific
Conductance
(uahos/ca)
Turbidity (NTU)
pH (pH Units)
TOCC
Avg. Peak
13
2.7
4.0
15
12
18
54
0.7
24
200
6.7
2.4
350
150
240
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.4
0.18
•C0.0001
120
49
6.7
110
(1-hr)
19
3.5
6.2
27
18
27
150
1.5
30
350
25
18
950
380
850
0.04
0.04
0.09
1.5 '
0.55
0.0006
660
130
7.6
290
STP8 Effluent
Concentration
(mg/1 unless
otherwise noted)
Average
65
24
35
220
330
150
230
4.9
21
35C
24
19
1000
1000
26
0.002
0.016
0.081
0.0098
0.087
0.0019
1900
20
7.6
30
Ratio
of Avg.
Runoff
to STP
Cone.
0.20
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.12
0.23
0.14
1.1
5.6
0.28
0.13
0.34
0.15
9.2
5
1.3
0.37
41
2.1
<0.05
0.06
2.5
3.5
Ratio
of Peak
Runoff
to Avg.
STP Cone.
0.29
0.15
0.18
0.12
0.05
0.18
0.66
0.31
1.4
10
1.1
0.92
0.92
0.37
32
20
2.5
1.1
150
6.3
0.32
0.36
6.5
9.7
Annual
Street ,
Surface
Runoffb
(Tonne/yr)
260
54
82
300
250
390
1100
15
560
2300
100
36 -
7100
3000
5400
0.03
2.8
4.3
28
4.3
<0.002
^~
~~
2300
Annual
STP
Effluent
(Tonne/yr)
7300
2900
4300
27,000
41,000
18,000
29,000
600
2500
4300C
2900
2400
130,000
130,000 ,
3200
!0.25
2.0
10
'1.2
ii
0.24
1 ~~
3700
Ratio of
Street
Surface
Runoff
to STP
Annual
Yield
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.006
0.02
0.04
0.03 .
0.2
0.5
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
1.7
0.1
1.4
0.4
24
0.4
<0.008
~~
0.6
*S*n Jose/Santa Clara secondary sanitary wastewater treatment plant serving 850,000 people. These values could vary
substantially for other facilities. ;
bAbout 200 people correspond to 1 curb-mile (2880 curb-miles in San Jose/575,000 population).
Therefore, a population of 850,000 corresponds to about 4250 curb-miles, with about 1100 curb-miles of
streets surfaced with oil and screens, and about 3150 curb-miles of streets surfaced with asphalt.
The city has about 62,000 urbanized acres.
c£*tl«ated.
"Total dissolved solids.
'Total organic carbon.
Source: Pitt 1979 '.
38
-------
plus street surface runoff yield. Total solids, cadmium, and mercury in the
street surface runoff contribute from 5 to 15'% of the total respectively,
while chemical oxygen demand, biochemical oxygen demand, and copper contribute
from 10 to 50% of this total. Suspended solids, chromium, zinc, and lead in
the street surface runoff contribute more than 50% of, the total.
These data show that for a receiving water getting both secondary treated
sanitary wastewater and untreated urban runoff, additional improvements in
the sanitary wastewater effluent may not be as cost-effective as some urban
runoff treatment (except for nutrients). That is especially true for lead
where more than 95% of the total wasteload is due to street surface runoff.
If all of the lead were removed from the sanitary wastewater effluent, the
total annual lead discharge would only decrease by about 4%.
DRY WEATHER RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
Limited data are available concerning Coyote Creek water quality during
dry weather. Therefore, a small water sampling program was conducted in late
March, 1977 along Coyote Creek from the south end of San Francisco Bay to
Anderson Dam. Ten locations were visited and water quality samples were taken.
Grab samples were collected at ten stations previously, described. These
samples, were analyzed for major parameters including pH, alkalinity (carbonate
and biocarbonate), total hardness, chlorides, sulfates, nutrients .(nitrates,
nitrites, and ammonia), turbidity, and total coliform bacteria. In addition,
dissolved oxygen, temperature and specific conductance were measured in the
field. '
Table 6-3 shows the water quality data for each of these ten stations.
The purpose of this monitoring was to detect water quality gradients in Coyote
Creek during dry weather. Several water quality problems are evident from
this data. In most cases (except for the station at William Street Park) the
water was very turbid with most values between 15 and 20 NTU. The water was
also hard to very hard (but this is common for all Santa Clara County surface
and groundwaters). The chloride concentration at the Dixon station was also
high but this is due to tidal influence. Free ammonia concentrations ranged
from 0.01 to 0.11 mg/1 with the highest value being at a downstream station.
About half of these values are equal to or greater than the aquatic life bene-
ficial use criteria for free ammonia (0.02 mg/1). The total coliform bacteria
populations were also high at most of the stations. Fecal coliform populations
may also be high at some of the stations. High phosphate and heavy metal
(especially lead) concentrations are also expected at the downstream stations.
Figure 6-1 is a plot of concentrations by distance fors selected para-
meters (specific conductance, turbidity, chlorides, ammonia and nitrites). It
is evident that there was a marked increase in concentrations of these para-
meters as the creek passed through the "urbanized area of the watershed. The
water quality values for the stations located upstream of the urbanized areas
were fairly consistent. The Dixon station is adversely influenced by the
tidal action of the bay and the discharge from the sewage treatment facility,
39
-------
x~x
O
O
C
0)
4J
..
S;
_^
m
JS
U
S
^^
eo
-SS
o
<
CO
Cd
0
M
H
0
>i
8
§
as
CO
1
a
z
u
H
<
at
a
y
3
.
•i
J3
£
U iH
o a
iu
•H O
rH O
JS
2
o
£
*£.
z if
*""
^^
•H
§S)
•
^*
enC
==j?
6*1
^
*H **"•
0 g,
>W
,-K
§1?
m
^*
^H
rv»»
8 9
X
•H °B x-»
a ^ -H
4J .
fil f
"*
a
9 /-v
CQ C *^»
1 S3
S~f
X
3 S
5W
•
B C?
& i*
^
U
a e o
£3f
S
e
o
i
CO
"
o o o o o o
in o o o o o
^ A|
CM m >o f** CM o
Sn r*i CM -* CM
O O O O O
O O O O O O
o in •«
— « co CA eM o m
-» o o -< d ""J
V "^
m m m o
•* OA o eft o\ eh
CM O — O O O
o m o o CM x
§00000
*0 O '4 *? d
CM -4
in co m o en m
er% 91 en CM r** ao
•H — i CM
•a- CM eM CM CM CM
O 0 O 0 O O
O O CM vO CM CO
o o o o o o
*3* *G , O •? -7 CM
-» CM en tn —> CM
^ CM 00 CO CM
MS co -» MS r«. —
in
o oo j3
m m
-» -a- -» -T m t«I
o o o o o o
o co in o — -o
*o m r*» r*. CM en
e»i o r*.
la o -H
C H U ad
Z
0
in
en
1
O
o
o
V
S
o
o
0
CM
V
en
CM
V
o
-o
o
eM
CM
UP
0
S
_
o
CO
eM
tM
CO
B
2
f
1
I
!
,
4J '
B
i :
«
£
U '
0) ,
0}
3
0)
w •
§i
a •
•o
B
«> !
3
•H '
B
a
•o .
c
-------
e
-------
and characteristically shows the poorest water quality. The Trimble through
Hellyer stations, however, were not influenced by these processes, but only
from urban runoff discharges, and the water qualities at these stations is
seen to be poorer than at the stations that were above the urban area. An
exception in many cases is the Tully station, which is located in Jan urban
area but has a large pool with little upstream flow contribution. The lower
temperature and the better water quality measured at that location indicates
that the source of water at that station was probably relatively clean ground-
water. The turbidity levels were all fairly consistent (except for a higher
value at the Dixon station) due to the turbid character of the water being
discharged upstream from the stations from Lake Anderson. Because these mea-
surements were made during a period of low'flow following a 3-week dry spell,
the water quality trends shown are expected to be less severe than what would
be expected during or soon after an actual runoff event, as previously de-
scribed. • • • ' ,
Coyote Creek water quality, in the urban and non-urban areas during dry
and wet weather is summarized in Table 6-4. This table is based on monitoring
during this project, during the Santa Clara County "208" project (Metcalf and
Eddy 1978), by the Santa Clara County Flood Control District and tjhe California
Dept. of Transportation. Additional data to be collected during the last
phase of this project will be used to expand this table and will allow statis-
tical comparisons of wet and dry, urban and non-urban water quality conditions.
SEDIMENT CHEMICAL QUALITY ;
Sediment samples were collected at each of the six sampling locations at
the end of the field program during the first study phase. These samples were
immediately frozen and transported to the laboratory for chemical, physical
and organic analyses. Figure 6-2 summarizes the sediment quality trends that
were observed for some of the major parameters. It is evident that orthophos-
phates, TOC, BOD5, sulfates, sulfur and lead all increased in concentration in
the sediments for the urban stations as compared to the upstream stations.
The median sediment particle sizes significantly decreased at urbanized sta-
tions, reflecting an increased silt content. Figure 6-3 shows the particle size
distributions for the sediment samples collected at the six stations. The
urban sediment size distributions are quite different than for the non-urban
sediments, especially in the size range from 100 to 1000 microns. The urban
sediments have a much larger abundance of finer particles than the non-urban
sediments. ;
Table 6-5 summarizes the parameters monitored in the sediments at the
urban stations that were significantly greater in concentration than in the
non-urban sediments. Sulfur, lead and arsenic are seen to be in substantially
greater concentrations (4 to 60 times greater) in the urban sediments than for
the non-urban sediments. Many minor elements also had higher concentrations
in the urban sediments. Other important parameters in greater abundance in
the urban sediments included organics and nutrients. In all cases', more para-
meters occurred at higher concentrations in the urban sediments as: the sam-
pling stations progressed downstream through the urban area. It is assumed that
the parameters increasing by the greatest amounts are the most likely causes
42
-------
Table 6-4. WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN COYOTE CREEK BY LOCATION
AND SEASON
Parameter (ng/1, unless
otherwise noted)
pH (pH Units)
Temperature (°C)
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sodium (Na)
Potassium (K)
Bicarbonate (HC03)
Carbonate (CO,)
Sulfate (SO,)
Chloride (Cl)
Total Hardness
Total Alkalinity
Total Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Suspended Solids (SS)
Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
Turbidity (NTU)
Specific Conductance (umhos/cm)
Dissolved Oxygen
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODr)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrates (NO,)
Nitrites (NO,)
Ammonia (NHj)
Orthophosphate (O-PO^)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Lead (Pb)
Zinc (Zn)
Copper (Cu)
Chromium (Cr)
Cadmium (Cd)
Mercury (Hg)
Total Coliform Bacteria (MPN/100 ml)
Fecal Conform Bacteria (MPN/100 ml)
Fecal Strep. Bacteria (MPN/100 ml)
Urban
Wet
Weather
6.7
16
13
4.0
0.01
2.7
54
0.019
18
12
_*
_
310
150
210
23
49
160
8.0
24
200
7
0.7
-
_ •
2.4
110
0.4
0.18
0.03
0.02
<0.002
<0.0001
>2400
>2400
>2400
Area
Dry
Weather
7.8
15
_
_
-
130
<24
55
60
250
240
_
_
_
_
14
520
7.6
„
..
0.84
0.024
0.95
_
„.
_
_
..
..
_
>1900
—
Non-Urban
Wet
Weather
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
_
600
90
_ i
_
4
2
_
_
0.8
_
_
^
^ ';
_
_
_
_
-
Area
Dry
Weather
7.9
15
40
25
19
1.9
170
3.0
37
15
200
140
280
_
18
400
11
_
_
1.2
,<0.002
0.33
0.6
,
_
_
_
_
>1300
-
*the blanks signify no data available
43
-------
t-
01
Q
ui
t/j
O
o_
t
UJ
5
Q
O
O
40,000
30,000-
o> 10,000-
Q
UJ
tn
in
Q
O
m
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
Urbanized
Non-urbanized
a.
a.
Q
STATIONS (relative locations)
8
o
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
Urbanized •<-
Non-urbanized
o
O
STATIONS (relative locations)
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(5-day)
STATIONS (relative locations)
Figure 6-2. Sediment quality conditions along Coyote Creek.
44
-------
I-
Ul
5
Q
LU
tn
I
O
o
I-
LU
Q
111
tn
Q
UJ
tn
HI
N
O
h-
GC
Q.
z
5
LU
2
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
SULFATES
Urbanized *
> Non-urbanized
I Q
STATIONS (relative locations)
STATIONS (relative locations)
400
300
200
100
LEAD
^Urbanzied
Non-urbanized
Q. F
.9- a
.STATIONS (relative locations)
o
O
MEDIAN SEDIMENT
PARTICLE SIZE
STATIONS (relative locations)
Figure 6-2. Sediment quality conditions along Coyote Creek (continued).
45
-------
100
100
PARTICLE SIZE
10,000
Figure 6-3. Particle size distribution of sediments.
46
-------
Table .6-5. SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION INCREASES BETWEEN THE MIRAMONTE
MONITORING STATION (NON-URBANIZED) AND DOWNSTREAM STATIONS
Hetcalfe
Stations
Derbe
William
Trlpp
Greater than lOx
Mlramonte Station
Values
Between 3.0 and Nickel (8.0)
lOx Greater than Chromium (6.5)
Mlramonte Station
Values
Between 2.0 and Cobalt (2.9)
2.9x Greater than Manganese (2.6)
Mlramonte Station Tantalum (2.3)
Values
Between 1.3 and Scandium (1.9)
1.9x Greater than
Mlramonte Station
Values
Sulfate (60) Sulfate (33)
Lead (10)
Sulfur (3.8) Arsenic (8.7)
Hafnium (4.7)
Hafnium (2.4) Gallium (2.4)
Chromium (2.0) Tantalum (2. 3)
Ytterbium (2.0) Thorium (2.3)
Sulfur (2.1)
Antimony (2.1)
Niobium (2.1)
Cadmium (2.0)
Ytterbium (2.0)
Yttrium (2.0)
Erbium (1.9) Chlorine (1.9)
Barium (1.5) Erbium (1.8)
Tantalum (1.3) Neodymlum (1.8)
Silver (>1.7)
Zinc (1.7)
Ortho POA (1.7)
Phosphorous (1.7)
Europium (1.5)
BOD5 (1.5)
Lanthanum (1.4)
Thallium (>1.3)
Holaium (1.3)
Selenium (1.3)
Sulfate (44)
Lead (11)
Arsenic (8.7)
Thallium (4.8)
Hafnium (4.7)
BOD5 (4.4)
Praseodynium (4.4)
Ortho PO, (3.9)
Silver O3.5)
Erbium (3.5)
Ytterbium (3.5)
Tantalum (3.0)
Sulfur (2.7)
Cadmium (2.6)
Tungsten (2.6)
Lanthanum (2.5)
Bismuth (>2.4)
Thorium (2.3)
Yttrium (2.3)
Antimony (2.1)
Lutecium (2'.1)
Gallium (2.0)
Europium (1.9)
Gadolinium (1.9)
Niobium (1.9)'
Uranium (1.9)
Chlorine (1.7)
Germanium (1.7)
Tin (1.7)
Titanium (1.7)
Mercury (1.6)
TOC (1.5)
Thallium (>1.3)
Holmium (1.3)
Selenium (1.3)
COD (1.3)
47
-------
for the degradation in observed biological quality. However, it must be assum-
ed that other parameters only slightly increasing in concentration may also be
important if their base concentrations are near critical levels. Beryllium,
aluminum, iron, molybdenum, and silicon did not substantially change between
the urban and non-urban sediments. These elements are in greater \abundance in
the natural erosion products in the watershed and urban activity does not
significantly alter the receiving water loads. Appendix A lists the concentra-
tions of all of the parameters monitored at each station according to their
general concentration values.
Sediment samples were also analyzed for brganics using a mass-spectro-
graph-gas-chromatograph (MSGC) in conjunction with an interfaced computer
system. No volatile organic compounds were found in the supernatant water
associated with the sediment samples. Because of the necessary sample prepa-
ration procedures, volatile organics could not be conducted on the sediment
material directly. Sample sediment extracts were directly analyzed for non-
volatile materials. Each sample contained a broad, undifferentiated peak at
the upper end of the gas-chromatograph temperature program (275°C). The in-
tensity level of this broad peak (and therefore total concentrations of compo-
nents) was significantly higher in the urban sediment samples than in the
non-urban sediment samples. Because of the "dirty" nature of the Camples,
specific compounds of this mixture could not be identified. Classes of com-
pounds present in these broad peaks were identified as high moleciilar weight
hydrocarbons (both aliphatic and aromatic) and high molecular weight oxygen-
ated compounds. No pesticides, herbicides or PCBs were identified in the
water associated with the sediments at the sampling locations. It is assumed
that these volatile organics are more soluble "and would be found in the runoff
water during storm events and may not significantly accumulate in;sediments
away from the outfalls. This conclusion could vary substantially for other
physical and chemical sediment conditions. ;
ORGANIC TISSUE ANALYSES '
Selected samples of fish (Gambusia affinis), filamentous algae (Clado-
phora sp.), crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) and cattail plant segments (Typha
sp.) were collected at most of the six stations noted in Table 3-2. Each
organism was chemically digested and analyzed for zinc and lead to indicate
potential accumulations of these important urban runoff pollutants in common
organisms. Tables 6-6 and 6-7 report these values on a milligram metal per
kilogram dry tissue basis. Lead concentrations were not detected{in many of
the organic samples but did increase by a factor of 2 or 3 in the samples
collected in the urban area for the algae, crayfish, and cattail specimens.
The fish lead concentrations did not seem to increase in the urban area.
Zinc concentrations were usually greater and were'detected in most of the
organic samples. Whole organism zinc concentrations increased by|a factor of
about 3 for the attached algae and the cattails, but stayed about;the same for
the crayfish and the fish specimens. Again, the urban area samples showed
the higher concentrations.
When the organism tissue concentrations were compared with the sediment
concentrations, some bioaccumulation of the metals was evident. The only
48
-------
Table 6-6. LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS*
(mg lead/kg dry tissue)
Specimen
Fish
Attached Algae
Crayfish
Higher Aquatics
Sediment
Non-Urbanized Stations
Cochran Miramonte Metcalfe
<40
<20 <30 <30
14 - <30
<20 <30 <30
28 37 16
Urbanized Stations
Derbe William Tripp
<30
200
29
<30
37
<40
170
<36
<50
370
<50
70
40
60
400
*The lead concentration in the urbanized section of Coyote Creek during storms
averaged about 0.4 mg/1. Dry weather and non-urbanized lead concentrations are
expected to be much less.
Table 6-7. ZINC CONCENTRATIONS IN BIOLOGICAL ORGANISIMS*
(mg zinc/kg dry tissue)
Specimen
Non-Urbanized Stations Urbanized Stations
Cochran Miramonte Metcalfe Derbe William Tripp
Fish
Attached Algae
Crayfish
-Higher Aquatics
Sediment
135
6.5 24
80
9 78
70 70
_
17
90
26
14
100
160
89
40
30
120
135
140
150
120
130
69
62
210
70
*The zinc concentration in the urbanized section of Coyote Creek during storms
averaged about 0.2 mg/1. Dry weather and non-urbanized zinc concentrations
are expected to be much less.
49
-------
bioaccumulation factor noted for lead was for an algae sample in an urban area
with a bioaccumulation factor of about 5. Bioaccumulation factors ranged up
to 2 for zinc in the non-urban fish specimens and up to 3 :in the urban fish
specimens. A bioaccumulation factor for algae of about 5 for zint was found
in an urban specimen. A bioaccumulation factor of about 6 was found for a
crayfish sample in the non-urban area and a maximum bioaccumulation factor of
3 in a crayfish sample in an urban specimen, even though the concentrations in
the urban samples were greater. A bioaccumulation factor of about 2 for zinc
was found in a cattail specimen in the non-urban sample and bioaccumulation
factors up to 3 were found in the urban cattail specimens.
Bioaccumulation factors for the organisms compared to water concentra-
tions were much higher. The bioaccumulation of zinc in the crayfish, attached
algae, and fish was at least 300 when compared with the zinc concentrations in
the water. The bioaccumulation of lead in attached algae in the urbanized
area of Coyote Creek was at least 500 and for crayfish, at least 100 when com-
pared to lead concentrations in the water. •
FISH
The fish fauna currently known to exist in the Coyote Creek drainage
system is comprised of 27 species, 11 of which are native California fishes,
the remainder having been introduced through the stocking ;efforts of the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game and by the activities of bait dealers,
fishermen, farm pond owners and others (Table 6-8). Both Lake Anderson and
Coyote Lake reservoirs sustain warm water sport fisheries and about one third
of the fish species reported from the Coyote Creek drainage are confined large-
ly to the lentic habitat provided by those reservoirs. This includes such
species as the threadfin shad, carp, golden shiner, brown bullhead, channel
catfish, Mississippi silverside, pumpkinseed, redear sunfish and white crappie.
In addition, the current distribution of two other fish species (the Sacramento
squawfish and the riffle sculpin), is apparently limited to the upstream por-
tions of Coyote Creek above Anderson Dam. Sacramento squawfish have not been
encountered downstream of Lake Anderson since 1960 (Scoppettone and Smith
1978) and riffle sculpin generally prefer the cool, gravel-bottomed riffles of
headwater streams (Moyle 1976). Of the remaining 16 species of ffLsh known
from the Coyote Creek system, 12 have been encountered during the1 present
study.
Seine collections from the non-urbanized reach of the current study area
have indicated the presence of 12 species of fish, half of which are native to
the Coyote Creek system. Similar collections in the urbanized reach of the
study area yielded only one native and three introduced fish species. As seen
in Table 6-9, the non-urbanized section of the stream supports a Comparatively
diverse assemblage of fish which include such native species as the California
roach, hitch, Sacramento blackfish, Sacramento sucker, threespine stickleback
and prickly sculpin. Collectively, those species comprised over 60% of the
366 fishes collected from the upper reaches of the study area. In contrast,
hitch, the only native fish collected form the urbanized reach of the study
area, represented less than 1% of the 1124 fish captured in the lower section
of the creek. Hitch generally exhibit a preference for quiet water habitat
50
-------
Table 6-8. FISH SPECIES CURRENTLY KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE COYOTE CREEK
DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Petromyzontidae - Lampreys
Pacific lamprey*
Clupeidae - Herrings
Threadfin shad
Salmonidae - Salmon and Trout
Rainbow trout*
Cyprinidae - Minnows and Carps
Goldfish
Carp
California roach*
Hitch*
Golden shiner
Sacramento blackfish*
Fathead minnow
Sacramento squawfish*
Speckled dace*
Catostomidae - Suckers
Sacramento sucker*
Ictaluridae - Catfish
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Poecilidae - Livebearers
Mosquitofish
Atherinidae - Silversides
Mississippi silverside
Gasterosteidae - Sticklebacks
Threespine stickleback*
Centrarchidae - Sunfish
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Redear sunfish
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie
Cottidae - Sculpins
Prickly sculpin*
Riffle sculpin*
Entosphenus tridentatus
Dorosoma petenense
Salmo gairdneri
Carassius auratus
Cyprinus carpio
Hesperoleucus symmetricus
Lavinia exilicauda
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Orthodon mi.crolepidotus
Pimephales promelas
P tychocheilus grandis
Rhinichthys osculus
Catostomus occidentalis
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Gambusia affinis
Menidia audens
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrocMrus
Lepomis microlophus
Micropterus salmoides
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Cottus asper ;
Cottus gulosus
*Native species
Source: Present study, Aceituno et al. (1976), California Dept. of Water Re-
sources (1978), Guzzetta (1974), and Scoppettone and Smith (1978).
51
-------
Table 6^9. TAXONOMIC COMPOSITION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF
FISH COLLECTED IN SEINE SAMPLES FROM COYOTE
CREEK: DURING FALL 1977 AND SPRING 1978
Species
Non-urbanized Reach
Relative Length
Abundance Range
«) (am)
Urbanized Reach
Relative
Abundance
Length
Range :
Cyprlnldae - minnows and carps
California roach
(Hesperoleueus symnetrlcus) 2.7 32 to 100
Hitch
(Lavlnla exlllcauda) 3.6 78 to 292
Sacramento blackfish
(Orthodon Blcrolepldotus) 2.2 160 to 340
Fathead sinnov
(Plmephales proaelas) 3.8 27 to 66
Catostoaldae - tuckers
Sacramento sucker
(Catogtoaus oecldentalls) 18.3 30 to 406
Foeclliidae - live bearers
Kosqultoflsh
(Cambusia affinis) 20.5 18 to 52
Gasterosteidae - sticklebacks
Threespine stickleback
(Casterosteus aculeatus) 33.1 34 to 50
0.4 48 to 142
1.2 35 to 65
98.3 15 to 52
Centrarchidae - sunflsh
Green sunflsh
(Leponis cyanellus)
Bluegill
(Lepomis Baeroehirus)
Largemouth bass
(Hlcropterus salaoides)
Black crapple
(FoDoxis nigronaculatus)
Cottldae - sculplns
Prickly sculpin
(Cottus asper)
9.0
4.4
0.5
0.5
1.4
36 to 123 0.1 30 1
35 to 96 - - :
89 to 350
64 to 219 - -
|
38 to 90 - -
Total Number of Fish Collected
366
1124
52
-------
and are characteristic of warm, low elevation lakes, sloughs, sluggish rivers
and ponds (Calhoun 1966 and Moyle 1976). In streams of the San Joaquin River
system in the Sierra Nevada foothills of central California, Moyle and Nichols
(1973) found hitch to be most abundant in warm, sandy-bottomed streams with
large pools where introduced species such as green sunfish, largemouth bass,
and mosquito fish were common. Likewise, within the present study, in the
lower portions of Coyote Creek hitch were found to be associated with green
sunfish, fathead minnows, and mosquito fish. However, mosquito fish completely
dominated the collections from the urbanized section of the creek since they
represented over 98% of .the total number of fish captured. In foothill streams
of the Sierra Nevadas, Moyle and Nichols (1973) found mosquito fish to be most
abundant in disturbed portions of intermittent streams, especially in warm,
turbid pools. The fish is particularly well adapted to live In extreme envi-
ronmental conditions, including those imposed by stagnant waters with low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations and elevated temperatures.
BENTHIC ORGANISMS
The taxonomic composition and relative abundance of benthic macroinverte-
brates collected from both natural and artificial substrates in Coyote Creek
are presented in Table 6-10. The benthos in the upper reaches of the Creek
was shown to consist primarily of immature dipterans (midges and blackflies)
along with certain clean water taxa such as mayflies and caddlsflies. The
benthos of the lower reaches of the creek was dominated exclusively by pollu-
tion tolerant oligochaete worms (tubificids).
In general, the abundance and diversity of taxa appear to be greatest in
the non-urbanized sections of the stream. Figure 6-4 shows the trend of the
overall decrease in the total number of benthic taxa encountered in the urban-
ized sections of the study area.
Crayfish were present throughout the study area and were collected in con-
junction with the fish sampling effort. Two species of crayfish were encoun-
tered in Coyote Creek waters—Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii.
Neither species is native to California waters. Pacifastacus leniusculus was
collected in the non-urbanized section of the study area. It is typically
found in a wide variety of habitats including large rivers, swift or sluggish
streams, lakes, and occasionally muddy sloughs (Riegel 1959). Procambarus
clarkii was collected in both the urbanized and non-urbanized sections of the
stream. Riegel (1959) states that the species prefers sloughs where the water
is relatively warm and vegetation plentiful; however, it is also found in
large streams. Because of its burrowing activities Proeombarus clarkii often
becomes a nuisance by damaging irrigation ditches and earthen dams.
ATTACHED ALGAE ; '
i
Qualitative samples from natural substrates indicated that the filamentous
alga, Cladophora sp. was found throughout the study area. However, its growth
reached greatest proportions in the upper sections of the stream. Table 6-11
presents the taxonomic composition and relative abundance of diatoms collected
53
-------
from artificial substrates placed at each sample location. The periphyton of
the non-urbanized reaches, of 'the stream was dominated by the genera Cocconeis
and Achnanthes. The genera Nitzschia and Navicula, generally accepted to be
more pollution-tolerant forms, dominated..Hie periphyton of the urbanized reaches
of Coyote Creek.
Table 6-10. TAXONOMIC COMPOSITION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF BENTHIC
MICROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED IN COYOTE CREEK DURING
SPRING 1978
Taxon
A
Ollgochaeta*
Hirudir.cn
Crustacea
Aaphlpoda
Talitridae
Hyalella azteca
Insects
Epheacroptera
' Baetidae
Baetis sp.
Centroptillua sp'.
Epheaerellldae
Ephcoerella sp.
Lepcophlebiidae
Habrophlebiodes sp.
Kcalptera
Corlxldae
Coleoptera
Dytiscldae
Trlchoptera
Hydropsychldae
Cheuaatopsyche op.
Hydroptilidae
Diptcra
Ceratopogonidae
Chironoaldae
Eapididae
Huscldae
Slnuliidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Gastropoda
Ly&naeidae
Lysnaea «p.
Phycidac
Phyta sp.
Planorbidae
Proaenetus sp.
Pelccypoda
Sphaerlidae
Piaidiua ap.
Total Huaber of Organises/a^
Relative Abundance (Z) of Each Taxon
Non-Urbanized Station
COCHRAN MIRAMONTE
Ekman Surber Artificial1 Ekman Surber Artificial
Dredge Sampler Substrate Dredge Sampler Substrate
48.7 23.2 2.3 89.8 0.4 l.A
0.7 - - 2.2 0.4
- - 1.2 -
10.8 0.9 - 4.9 5.2
- 1.2
- - 0.6 - 6.1 3.8
- 4.5 - -
•1.7
- - 0.4 0.8
, ' '
- - - -
0.8 - ,.
0.4 - - -
46.8' 2.7 36.0 0.7 2.4 18.7
0.4 - - -
- 0.7 2.9
56.4 59.9 - 70.2 27.9
- 0.7
0.8 -
0.4 - - 0.7 0.4
0.8 - 1.5 3.3 30.1
0.7 - 0.3 3.7 4.5 12.1
1 Q Ml _ V u M
5836 602 1428 2952 1323 555
Within The Sample
• METCALFE
Ekman Surber
Dredge ' Sampler
, 45.3
-
-
i 4'7
', ~ , ~
' - 15.1
:
i
1.1 '.
- 4.7
4.7
-
-
93.6 15.1
1.1
- i
: 10.4
4.2 :
-
~ ~
- ' -
— ••
-
!
,
— ' ~
2046 ' 106
Artificial
Substrate
_
-
-
. -
23.5
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
76.5
-
-
~
-
~
-
~
17,
Method of collection at each location.
The najority of voras belonged to the family Lumbriculldae.
54
-------
Taxon
Gligochaeta
Hirudinea
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella azteca
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis sp.
Centroptiliuiii sp.
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella sp.
Leptophlebiidae
Habrophleblodes sp.
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Hydroptllidae
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Empididae
Huscidae
Simuliidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Table 6-10. (Concluded)
Relative Abundance (X) of Each Taxon Within the Sample
Urbanized Stations
DERBE
Ekman Surber Artificial
Dredge Sampler Substrate
Ekman
Dredee
WILLIAM
Surber Artificial
100.0
99.1
TRIPP
Eknan Surber Artificial
Dredge Sampler Substrate
79.7
100.0
94.5
54.3
100.0 99.5
34.9
15.5
0.1 4.8
5.5
45.7
0.5
65.1
Gastropoda
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaea sp.
Physidae
Physa sp.
Planorbidae
Promenetus sp.
Pelecypoda
Sphaeriidae
Pisldiun sp.
0.8
Total Number of Organisms/m2 926 3432
84
1335
290
138
1787
3362
83
The majority of worms belonged to the family Tubificidae.
55
-------
STATIONS (relative locations)
Figure 6-4. Abundance of benthic taxa collected from natural and
artificial substrates in Coyote Creek during Spring of 1978.
56
-------
TABLE 6-11.
TAXONOMIC COMPOSITION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF DIATOMS
COLLECTED ON GLASS SLIDES IN COYOTE CREEK DURING THE
SPRING OF 1978
Relative Abundance (Z) of Each Taxon Within the Sample
Non-urbanized stations
Cochran Miramonte Hetcalfe
Taxon
Centrales
Coscinodiscaceae
Melosira spp. 0.4 - _
Pennales
Diatomaceae
Diatoms vulgare 0.4 _ 15
Fragilariaceae
Synedra sp. _ _
Achnanthaceae
Achnanthes lanceolate 20.6 17 ft 55 ^
Rhoicosphenia curvata 0.4 -
Cocconeis pedicul'us 15.0 is 7 Q t,
Cocconeis placentula 62.4 4/To /,j j
Navlculaceae
Navlcula spp. _ _
Diploneis sp. - _
Frustulia rhonboldes - _ _
Gyrosigma sp. - . _
Gomphonemataceae
Goaphonena spp. . .. ^
Cymbellaceae
Cymbella spp. 0.8 - _
Rhopalodia spp. - _ _
Nitzschiaceae
Mitzschia spp. - _ 0>8
Denticula elegans -
Surirellaceae
Cynatopleura solea - _ _
Surirella spp.
Total Number of Frustules/gm2 5545 4950 1374
Urbanized stations
Derbe William
1.2
0.8 0.9
49.8 0.9
1.2
10.5
i 2.4
0.4
2.8 6.9
2.0
43.4 67.5
2.4
0.9
2.0 4.0
4488 1189
Tripp
0.8
0.4
1.6
23.8
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
70.6
0.4
0.4
4575
57
-------
SECTION 7
CONTROL OF URBAN RUNOFF
REMOVAL GOALS
The degradation of conditions observed in Coyote Creek as it passed
through San Jose may be due to several factors. These may include urban
runoff, stream flows (both associated and not associated with urban runoff),
and natural conditions (drought, stream gradient, groundwater infiltration,
etc.). The preliminary conclusion is that urban runoff is the most important
factor. Additional data collection and analyses to be conducted in Coyote
Creek may help substantiate this conclusion and may help establish urban runoff
control goals. The following discussion presents some preliminary urban runoff
control goals. ' .
Any urban runoff control program must be based upon control; goals. Table
7-1 summarizes various removal conditions necessary to meet various goals for
urban runoff quality and Coyote Creek conditions. These removal; goals are
based upon the earlier descriptions of beneficial use impairments and monitored
biological conditions in the receiving water. The, removal goals; shown in
Table 7-1 are all very high and will most likely not be obtainable by currently
available urban runoff control procedures. These goals are not reasonable
because they are rot directly applicable to receiving water conditions except
for those goals based on actual benefical use impairments in the receiving
water. These goals are based on three conditions. The first is based on
monitored conditions; the second set of goals corresponds to maintaining
runoff water quality and receiving water quality during storms equal to benefi-
cial use water quality criteria; and the third set of goals compares urban
runoff to secondary sanitary sewage effluent conditions. The water quality
criteria goals for lead and phosphate are quite high (up to 90% removal).
These are not very reasonable because the criteria for these beneficial uses
are designed for continuous discharge conditions. Intermittent :storm dischar-
ges may have more important or less important effects on these beneficial
uses depending upon the situation. Contact sports criteria would not be
important for runoff water quality because of the lack of participation in
these activities during storms. Aquatic life, however, may be more susceptible
to short-term high concentrations of intermittent discharges than constant
discharge conditions. Similarly, the sanitary wastewater effluent condition
goal may not be reasonable. The secondary treatment requirements for sanitary
wastewater are also based on continuous discharges and do not reflect the
differences that slug discharges may impose on different types of receiving
waters. The first criteria shown on Table 7-1 are based on actual field mea-
surements made during these Coyote Creek studies and would be considered the
58
-------
Table 7-1. VARIOUS URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL GOALS
FOR RUNOFF TO EQUAL BENEFICIAL USE
CRITERIA DURING STORMS FOR:
Maximum Goal
(Comparable To
Background Livestock Aquatic Water
Parameter Condition)* Use Life Supply Recreation
Suspended Solids
BOD5 75% -
COD - - - - -
TOC - - - - -
P04 75 - - 90Z
SOt 95
Pb 90 75Z . 90Z 90Z
As 90 - - -
Cd 50 - - -
Cr - -
Zn 40
FOR RUNOFF TO EQUAL SECONDARY
SMITARY WASTEWATER EFFLUENT:
Concentrations
During Annual
Runoff Events Yield
90Z 40Z
10
85 -
70
. , -'
: _
98 '95
-
80
25 30
50
*Based on sediment measurements*
59
-------
maximum removals necessary. These removals should bring the urbanized creek
segments to non-urbanized conditions. Non-urbanized conditions may not be
necessary before acceptable receiving water conditions are obtained. The
continuation of the Coyote Creek studies will attempt to identify acceptable
removal goals to meet major aquatic life criteria for Coyote Creek.
URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL MEASURES
The following discussion summarizes the costs, effectiveness and magni-
tude of potential uses for various urban runoff control measures. After urban
runoff problems and source areas most responsible for the problem pollutants
are identified, an appropriate urban runoff control program can be designed.
Table 7-2 lists the various control measures that have been considered for
controlling urban runoff for potential pollutant sources and source areas.
As an example, street cleaning can only be applied to those impervious
areas that street cleaning equipment has access to. Cleaning catch basins and
storm sewerage systems can affect only that material that accumulates in them
(mostly from adjacent street surfaces and erosion material from construction
sites). Treatment of the urban runoff at the outfall, however, is capable
of affecting pollutants originating from all of these sources. As noted
previously, however, relative contributions and yields from these sources
must be considered in designing an appropriate urban runoff control program.
Table 7-3 summarizes the relative unit effectiveness of various control
measures affecting each source area. Approximately 20 kilograms of a pollutant
would have to be removed from vacant and landscaped areas to remove 1 kilogram
of that pollutant from the runoff. However, only 1.3 kilograms of a pollutant
would have to be removed from the street surfaces to control 1 kilogram in
the runoff. These relative effectiveness values significantly affect the unit
costs associated with removing pollutants from the different source areas.
Table 7-4 shows the suitability of various measures for controlling ur-
ban runoff pollutants. It combines the information presented in Tables 5-2
and 5-3 and also considers relative source strengths and approximate control
measure effectiveness. Any one of the control measures shown is highly suit-
able for only a few of the pollutant groups, while many of the control mea-
sures can be partially suitable for many of the pollutants. Even if a poten-
tial problem is confined to a single pollutant, a combination of control mea-
sures will most likely be needed.
The most appropriate control measure combination can be selected knowing
potential removals and unit costs for each control measure. Not considering
other runoff control objectives or partial control of the other pollutants,
one could simply start with the least costly control measure until1 the de-
sired removal is obtained. If only a small quantity must be removed, the
least expensive control option may be sufficient. However, if greater quan-
tities must be removed, then a combination of control measures is needed.
The selected mixture of control measures could vary, depending upon the para-
meters of concern and the total control needed.
60
-------
Table 7-2. CONTROL MEASURES MOST SUITABLE FOR CONTROLLING POLLUTANTS
FROM VARIOUS SOURCE AREAS
Control Measures
Street Cleaning
Leaf Removal
Control Grass Types
Repair Streets
Control Fertilizer,
Pesticide, etc.
Control .Use of
Vacant Land
Control Litter
Control Dog Litter
Control Direct
Discharge of Pollutants
to Storm Drains
Potential Pollutant Source Areas
Other
Land- Con- (Industrial
Street Parking scaped Vacant struction and Solid
Rooftops Surfaces Lots , Areas Land Sites Waste Runoff)
XX
X X
X X
X X
XX
X X
X X
X XX
X X
Eliminate Cross Connections
with Sanitary Sewers X
Clean Catchbasins
Clean Storm Sewers and
Drainage Channels
X X
X X
Prevent Roof Drainage
from Directly Entering
Storm Sewer
Direct Runoff Away from
Contaminated Areas
Retain Runoff from
Contaminated Areas
Regrade Disturbed Areas
Control Erosion at
Construction Sites
Store and Treat Runoff
61
-------
(J
^j
Ct<
H
O
H
H
l-l
i_3
^*
f~-i
O"
ft|
fe
O
s
ED
CH
[£J
1
M
O
H
CO
2
U
a
2
M
^3
[O
s
rJ
0
*2*
p
1
w
>•
1— 1
H
^
3
9
en
1
t-s
0)
rH
cfl
EH
dl
M
cfl >% X-N
4-J *^I S*5
C3^
0) 4-1
y CO CO
M (U
p_l O M 4-1
S
r-i c -y ^
CO <1J 3 TJ
3 U t-l rH
S H rH OJ
C CO O -H
< PJ PM >-l
1 -0
C rH
3 0 0 rH
O" E >-l rH
(U 4-1 Cfl
<0 P* C IH
60 O 4J
cfl U 3 ^N
j_i o c^ 6C
0) O rM
> 0 4J 4-1 v_x
in o m o
CO J
T3 rJ CO ^£
d ft rH 60
CO 4-1 O Cfl C!
p! 4J !3 -H
Cj Cfl M_| QJ ^
3 o o *^3 j-j
cfl CO O "H cfl
rJ > erf co PM
rH
CN
to
1*^,
CO
c
r-l
CO
0)
u
CO
1{H
^
^
CO
4J
O)
0)
r^
4J
CO
62
-------
Table 7-4.. SUITABILITY OF CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONTROLLING
COMMON URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTANTS
Control Measures
Street Cleaning
Control Fertilizer,
Pesticides, etc.
Control Use of
Control titter
Control Dog Litter
Eliminate Cross Connections
with Sanitary Sewers
Clean Storm Sewers
Prevent Roof Drainage
from Directly Entering
Direct Runoff Away from
Retain Runoff from
Regrade Disturbed Areas
Control Erosion at
Store and Treat Runoff
Common Urban Runoff Pollutants
Oxygen
Demanding Heavy Pesticides/ Oils and Floating
Sediment Matter Nutrients Salts Bacteria Metals Herbicides Grease Matter
M* 'L L ML/MB M M
L/M L/M L L L L H
L L L L/M L/M
L/M L L L
H H
L/M L/M L/M
T. L L/M L/M M
L M M/H ' . !•
L/M L/M M/H
• L L/M L
L/M L/M L .
L L L
M
M _
M L
„ L/M
H M/H M L H L/M L M H
*L - Low suitability
L/M - Low-medium suitability
M - Medium suitability
M/H - Medium-high suitability
63
-------
Table 7-5 compares the maximum pollutant removal potentials (as measured
at the outfall) for four types of control measures. The four control mea-
sures illustrated are monthly street cleaning, twice weekly street cleaning,
typical erosion control, and moderate runoff treatment. These removal poten-
tials are a function of the removal efficiency of the specific pollutant by '
the control measure at the source and the effective yield of that source to
the outfall yield. Therefore, erosion control for typical conditions (about
1% of an area under active construction) would not be highly efficient in con-
trolling urban runoff yields for the whole area. Special circumstances, such
as large construction activities, make erosion control practices a necessity
in urban areas. Street cleaning is capable of removing significant portions
of many of the pollutants but at potentially high costs. However; these
costs are typically much less than the estimated runoff treatment•costs when
flow equalization and storage are considered. Two different cost values are
shown for each control measure. The lower value is the unit cost (dollars
per pound removed) for removal of a kilogram of pollutant from the source
area. The second and higher cost value is the corresponding unit cost for
removing an effective kilogram of the pollutant from the outfall yield.
Even though the unit cost for controlling erosion at the source is quite low,
the effective cost for removing pollutants at the outfall is substantially
greater than for the other control measures. The two types of street clean-
ing programs illustrated have significantly different unit costs. Less fre-
quent street cleaning is capable of removing a much greater quantity of pol-
lutant per unit effort and cost than more frequent street cleaning. A con-
dition is also reached with intensive street cleaning when the street surface
cannot become any cleaner by street cleaning. '
64
-------
Table 7-5. CONTROL MEASURES AND UNIT REMOVAL COSTS
MONTHLY STREET CLEANING
Parameter
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
COD
BODj
Ortho PO^
Kjeldahl N
Pb
Zn
Cr
Cu
Cd
Removal
Potential
(kg/ha/yr)*
-Outfall
Equivalent
at 75Z
56
(255!)**
28
(202)
5.4
(10X)
2.8
(10Z)
0.010
«1Z)
0.12
(5Z)
0.22
(25Z)
0.028
(302)
0.022
(25Z)
0.040
(30Z)
0.00015
(20Z)
Unit Cost
at Source
(S/kg
Removed)
0.13
0.26
1.3
3.5
770
64
33
260
330
180
44,000
Unit Cost
at Outfall
($/kg
Removed)
0.17
0.35
1.7
4.7
1000
85
44
350
440
240
59,000
TWICE
Removal
Potential
(kg/ha/yr)*
-Outfall
Equivalent
at 752
130
(602)
67
(45Z)
13
(20Z)
6.6
(20Z)
0.023
(2Z)
0.29
UOZ)
0.54
(602)
0.066
(752)
0.053
(601)
0.098
(802)
0.00037
(40Z)
WEEKLY STREET
Unit Cost
at Source
<$/kg
Removed)
0.48
0:97
4.9
10
2900
MO
:120
1000
1300
660
180,000
CLEANING
Unit Cost
at Outfall
($/kg
Removed)
0.64
1.3
6.5
13
3900
320
160
1300
1700
880
240,000
•These unit area removal potentials refer to the complete watershed, not just street surface or construction site areas.
**The numbers in parentheses are the percentage removals of the total outfall yield for these conditions.
***Averaged from many candidate runoff treatment practices, Including storage, capital
and operating costs (Lager, et al., 1977)
65
-------
REFERENCES
Aceituno, M.E., M.L. Caywood, and S.J. Nicola. Occurrence of Native
Fishes in Alameda and Coyote Creeks, California. California '
Fish and Game 62(3): 195-206, 1976. :
California Dept. of Water Resources. Anderson Reservoir Limnologi'c
Investigation. California Department of Water Resources, Central
District. 240 pp, 1978.
Calhoun, A.C., Ed. Inland Fisheries Management, California Department
of Fish and Game. Sacramento, 546 pp, 1966.
Farmer, J.G. and T.D.B. Lyon. Lead in Glasgow Street Dirt and SoiL
The Science of the Total Environment 8: 89-93, 1977.
Guzzetta, D.J. A Preliminary Survey of the Aquatic Habitat of Henry W.
Coe State Park with Management Proposals. M.A. Thesis, San Jose
State University, California. 75 pp, 1974.
Lager, J.A., W.G. Smith, W.G. Lynard, R.M. Finn and E.J. Finnemorei. .
Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Update and Users Guide.
EPA-600/8-77-014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati
Ohio. 331 pp, September, 1977.
McKee, J., and H.W. Wolf. Water Quality Criteria, 2nd ed.: Stated Water
Quality Control Board. Sacramento, California. 548 pp., 963.
McMullen, T.B. and R.B. Faoro. Occurrence of Eleven Metals in Airborne
Particulates and Surficial Materials. Journal Air Pollution Control
Association 27: 12: 1198-1202. December, 1977.
Metcalf and Eddy Engineers. Surface Water Management Plan for Santa
Clara County - Technical Appendices, for Santa Clara Valley Water
District. San Jose, California. December, 1978.
Moyle, P.B. and R.D. Nichols. Ecology of Some Native and Introduced
Fishes of the Sierra Nevada Foothills in Central California.
Copeia 1973(3): 478-490, 1973.
Moyle, P.B. Inland Fishes of California. Unversity of California Press
Berkeley, 405 pp, 1976.
66
-------
Olson, K.W. and R.K. Skogerboe. Identification of Soil Lead Compounds
from Automotive Sources. Environmental Science and Technology
9: 3: 227-230. March, 1975.
Pitt R.E. and G. Amy. Toxic Materials Analyses of Street Surface
'contaminants. EPA-R2-73-283. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. 135 pp, August, 1973.
Pitt R.E. Demonstration of Non-Point Pollution Abatement through Improved
'street Cleaning Practices. EPA-600/2-79-161, 289 pp, 1979.
Riegel J.A. The Systematics and Distribution of Crayfishes in California.
' California Fish and Game. 45(1): 29-50, 1959.
Sarfor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface
Contaminants: EPA-R2-72-081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., November 1972.
Scoppettone, G.G. and J.J. Smith. Additional Records on The Distribution
and Status of Native Fishes in Alameda and Coyote Creeks, California.,
California Fish and Game 64(1): 61-65, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975 Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards: Subchapter D, Part 141, Subpart A, 1975.
. Proposed Criteria for Water Quality: Vol. 1. October, 1973.
. Water Quality Criteria, Environmental Studies Board:
r~~ NAS-NAE, EPA-R3-73-033. March, 1973.
67
-------
X!
51
CO
o
M
M
g
0
CJ
£
J 1
« OO CO
CM OO
VO rH
CO
' rH O
vomoooo o o
i— 1 O O O <|- V O O
co o o c^ cr>
» « CO CO
vO CO
sj-
vO O
OvoOOOO O O
CM CM O O iH O O
iH O O iH ,H O
r^ si"
VO ^-1
CO CO
t^-ooooo o o
CM CM O O iH O O
sf O O CO o O
oo oo oT oT
CT> CM CM CM
^j-
CM O
• •
--ist-OOOO O O
CMC?iOOCMV O O
O VD i— 1 O CTi
»* o\ vo in
CO
vL' r-
rn 0) C
to 60 0)
13 0 60
•H , /-x M o
i — 1 ^N y— \ T3 4-J Ij
060^x^^^-s60a»-rl 4J
CO^S 606060AS >S>-s.H^N
**~ £& £6 £t ~~^- TH 60 !S 60
Q) 60'>^ -^-^.ISOrH^^
•H 6 6060S eoto^-^o-^
•H<^gS60SWtfl!S^H!2:
4J ^-'^'S^-H'd60Ci60
™ m ^-S Tj rH g tfl G
rH Q Q CJ CO CO1—' P3CJHSI!S W o
vO
vf> O O
iH lT>
!
o\ :
CM CO O
OO CM
CM
i-H O O
in vo
1—4 rH
st- 00
*-l O O'
CO
f~- in :
• •
— I CM O
0
si-
vO
*"3" *^"
CD s? o:
m
CO
60
A: i
st-
o
CO
60 01
/-s 6 N
• sf 60 ^ -H
O ^- W ;
P-i -U 0
o 60 tri tfl •*-
fi S IH >H '
4J v-' rH TJ x_
^ 3 cu
O CO g
68
-------
Table A-2. PARAMETERS GENERALLY WITHIN 0.1 TO 1.0
mg/kg CONCENTRATION RANGE* IN SEDIMENTS
Parameter
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Erbium
Europium
Holmium
Lutecium
Selenium
Silver
Tantalum
Tellurium _
Terbium
Thallium
Thallium
Tungsten
Cochran
0.50
0.52
0.48
0.57
0.83
0.30
0.16
0.37
<0.1
0.51
<0.20
0.44
0.76
0.27
0.56
Miramonte
<0.48
<0.42
0.54
0.57
0.83
0.46
0.16
0.82
<0.1
0.20
0.17
1.7
<0.76
0.23
0.58
Station
Metcalfe
0.53
<0.42
<0.44
0.44
0.35
0.26
0.15
0.47
<0. 1
0.45
<0.20
0.38
0.76
<0.19
<0.46
Derbe
<0.48
<0.42
0.62
1.1
0.41
0.53
0.16
0.36
<0.1
2.6
<0.20
0.66
<0.76
0.23
0.66
William
<0.48
<0.42
i.r
l.'O
1.2
0.61
0.19
1.1
0.17
0.45
<0.12
0.66
0.96
0.23
0.66
Tripp
0.48
1.0
1.4
2.0
1.6
0.61
0.33
1*1
0.35
0.60
0.10
1.9
0.96
1.1
1.5
*Parameters less than 0.1 mg/kg at all stations:
Gold, Iridium, Osmium, Palladium Platinum, Rhodium, Ruthenium.
69
-------
Table A-3. PARAMETERS GENERALLY WITHIN 1.0 TO 10 mg/kg CONCENTRATION RANGE
IN SEDIMENTS
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Bromine
Cesium
Chlorine
Dysprosium
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Iodine
Lanthanum
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Niobium
Praseodymium
Samarium
Thorium
Tin
Uranium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Cochran
1.4
6.1
6.0
4.3
6.0
2.2
2.1
5.4
1.0
4.0
7.0
7.1
1.1
0.98
9.0
3.2
2.7
4.3
6.0
2.3
2.3
2.0
6.1
Miramonte
1.4
1.5
28
4.3
25
2.7
2.1
2.3
0.60
1.7
16
5.7
8.4
1.1
5.1
3.6
2.7
5.4
6.9
2.3
2.3
0.85
6.1
Station
Metcalfe
0.30
<1.0
6.9
0.43
14
0.72
1.1
1.1
0.60
1.7
6.2
3.8
1.6
0.98
1.8
3.6
1.2
1.1
1.6
0.53
0.99
0.74
5.4
Derbe
1.2
1.5
2.4
1.6
6.0
1.3
1.9
2.0
0.52
4.0
1.6
3.8
6.6
1.1
2.6
3.6
1.2
2.6
4.8
2.3
2.3
1.7
5.4
William i
3.0
13
14 !
3.2
47 ;
1.4 :
1.9
5.4
0.60
7.9
7,0 ;
8.1
4.3 :
1.1
9.0
7.7
2.7 :
4.3 :
16 ;
2.3
2.0
1.7
12 i
Tripp
3.0
13
14
1.8
42
3.1
4.0
4.6
1.0
7.9
12
14
13
1.3
6.0
6.8
12
5.4
16
4.0
4.4
3.0
14
70
-------
Table A-4. PARAMETERS GENERALLY WITHIN A 10 TO 100 mg/kg CONCENTRATION RANGE
IN SEDIMENTS
Parameter
Station
Cochran Miramonte Metcalfe Derbe William Tripp
Cerium
Copper
Lead
Lithium
Rubidium
Scandium
Strontium
Sulfur
Zinc
Zirconium
20
42
28
43
37
14
59
69
70
40
23
42
37
86
66
14
140
320
70
40
11
24
16
29
13
27
59
69
14
17
23
42
37
—
20
7.2
120
»1200
30
35
23
48
370
57
28
7.2
69
660
120
40
23
48
400
~
37
7.2
120
870
70
37
71
-------
Table A-5.
PARAMETERS GENERALLY WITHIN A 100 TO 1000 mg/kg CONCENTRATION
RANGE IN SEDIMENTS '
Parameter
Table A-6.
Station
Cochran Miramonte Metcalfe Derbe William Tripp
Barium
Boron
Chromium
Fluorine
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
270
170
130
260
750
560
130
480
91
120
820
500
150
126
270
59
780
260
= 1300
= 1200
71
740
33
240
300
250
98
71
400 ;
83
130
530
150 I
120
71 '
580
91
120
450
380
120
71
PARAMETERS WITH CONCENTRATIONS GENERALLY GREATER THAN 1000 mg/kg
IN SEDIMENTS ;
Parameter
Aluminium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Titanium
Cochran
=3000
=4700
=4400
>10,000
>1 0,000
= 1600
=4000
>10,000
=2800
=1500
Mir amonte
>10,000
>10,000
31
>10,000
>5000
690
>10,000
>10,000
>10,000
= 1300
Station
Metcalfe
>10,000
>10,000
89
>10,000
>10,000
480
= 2700
>10,000
=3200
= 1300
Derbe
>10,000
>10,000
16
>10,000
>10,000
690
=3400
>10,000
=2800
= 1100
William
>10,000
>5000 "'
31 ,
>10,000 ;
>1 0,000 j
=1200 .:
>5000
>io,ooo :
XL 0,000 :
=1500 ;•
Tripp
>1 0,000
>5000
18
>10,000
>10,000
690
>5000
>10,000
>5000
=2200
72
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-104
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
JATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
JRBAN RUNOFF ON COYOTE CREEK
>hase I -' Preliminary Survey
AUTHOR(S)
tobert Pitt
viartin Bozeman
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
loodward-Clyde Consultants
hree Embarcadero Center, #700
an Francisco, California 94111
|2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory--Cin.,OH
)ffice of Research and Development
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
. REPORT DATE
August 1980 (Issuing Date)
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
sIG ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. P
FELEWIENT NO.
35BIC
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant No. R805418
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim-November 1977-Mav 1979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
^roject Officer: Richard Field (201) 321-6674 (FTS 340-6674)
Storm and Combined Sewer Section, (Edison, N.J.)
|6. ABSTRACT ;
This preliminary report describes the characteristics of urban runoff affecting Coyote
>eek, sources of urban runoff .pollutants, effects of urban runoff and potential con-
.. jls for urban runoff. Local urban runoff characterization information is summarized,
and sources of urban runoff pollutants are being investigated and include sampling
Ifrom source areas such as street surfaces, parking lots, landscaped areas and rooftops.
IVarious biological sampling techniques were used to evaluate the fish, benthic
nacroinvertebrates and attached algae conditions in the.creek, above and within
le urban area. Creek water and sediment samples were also obtained and analyzed for
la broad list of parameters. In most cases, very pronounced gradients of these creek
[quality indicators were observed, with the urbanized portion of the creek being
{significantly degraded. Current additional monitoring is being conducted to identify
Ithe urban runoff control goals necessary to improve creek quality to adequate levels.
7 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
L . DESCRIPTORS
Stream pollution, Surface water,
Runoff,. Municipal engineering,
Public works, Storm sewers,
Water pollution.
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.lDENTlFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Non- point sources,
Urban runoff effects,
Non-Point pollution
control, Receiving
Water effects.
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
1 3B
21. NO. OF PAGES
81
22. PRICE
Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
73
•to U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980--657-165/0131
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
c
V)
CD
00
O
o
m
-a
i
CD
O
O
ro
oo
o
I
2; o c
— ? a.
i
M
o 3
5"
c» o
03 31
cx m
So
m > TJ i
5« s <
• 3 CD =;'
OO O O O
00-< ^. D
CJ1 O g
D CD
-------
|