Archive for February, 2007

State Supreme Court Decision on CEQA and Water

Published
by
Larry
on February 9, 2007
in Groundwater and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Dear Friends:

RE: Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova and Sunrise Douglas Property Owners Association et al.
Decision by California Supreme Court, 2/1/07 [attached]

This is an excellent decision, and will help us immensely as we look at CEQA reviews of the upcoming General Plans for Sonoma County and Petaluma, no less for other major development projects being proposed. The impacts of these plans and projects on the long-term health and viability of the Russian and Eel Rivers and their fisheries, and our groundwater resources, must be included in depth in the DEIR. The information presented in the current DEIRs is clearly deficient.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that under CEQA, the provision of water for a new development must look at the impacts over the long term, not just the short term, including the impacts on migratory fish:
“We conclude that while the EIR adequately informed decision makers and the public of the County’s plan for near-term provision of water to the development, it failed to do so as to the long-term provision and hence failed to disclose the impacts of providing the necessary supplies in the long term. While the EIR identifies the intended water sources in general terms, it does not clearly and coherently explain, using material properly stated or incorporated in the EIR, how the long-term demand is likely to be met with those sources, the environmental impacts of exploiting those sources, and how those impacts are to be mitigated. On the second issue, we agree with plaintiffs that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated for public comment on the newly disclosed potential impact on Cosumnes River fish migration.” [pg 2]

“The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been taken into account. (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391-392.) For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information in such a manner that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can actually be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. On the important issues of long-term water supply and impacts on migratory fish, the County’s actions in the present case fell short of these standards.” [pg 44]

Please take the time to read the full decision.

Please ensure that preparation of the Draft and Final EIRs for the Petaluma General Plan and the Sonoma County General Plan, as well as for all significant new water demanding developments, will meet the standards specified by the California Supreme Court.

It is clear that CEQA review of a project cannot be limited to the near term impacts of a project. The same principle would seem to apply to other basic parts of the infrastructure and our public trust resources.

Congratulations to Steve Volker and the other supporting attorneys on this victory, including Bill Lockyer for the State of California. The opposing firms included Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson; Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley; Morrison Foerster and others.

David Keller
Bay Area Director
Friends of the Eel Riverranchocordovaruling.pdf

California Supreme Court on CEQA Compliance

Published
by
Larry
on February 8, 2007
in Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

FYI: California Supreme Court Weighs In Once Again on CEQA Compliance

Have a great week,
Rue

Excerpt: By William W. Abbott & Janell M. Bogue

Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (February 1, 2007, S132972) __ Cal.4th __ [2007 Cal.Lexis 748]

Few CEQA cases reach the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, it is noteworthy that the court has issued two decisions on CEQA issues in the past eight months. The most recent decision in Vineyard Area Citizens, provides added extensive guidance on the interface between water supply and CEQA. The case also provides a more limited analysis on EIR recirculation.

View the entire entry:
http://blog.aklandlaw.com/archives/ceqa-california-supreme-court-weighs-inl

Repercussions Of Water Pollutants That Mute Smell

Published
by
Larry
on February 7, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Janet Raloff
(Science News Jan. 27, 2007 Vol. 171)

People complain about the way that fish smell. But it’s the fish that should be doing the grumbling. In pristine waters, the animals smell quite well, thank you. Those tiny holes near fishes’ mouths are, in fact, nostrils through which the animals draw in water to pump over olfactory nerves. By distinguishing scents, fish find food and mates and avoid predators.

Continue reading ‘Repercussions Of Water Pollutants That Mute Smell’

GPU Riparian Resources

Published
by
Larry
on February 6, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

For those dealing with County General Plan and Grading Ordinance Riparian Setback and stream protection issues, NMFS has supplied the links - included below.

This information can be useful in commenting on City and County policy development as well as on individual development and land use projects that effect streams:

1. Matrix summarizing literature regarding riparian function and zones of influence (draft NMFS product)
2. Websites for riparian setback information:

“Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers” was originally prepared for the Chagrin River Watershed partners in Ohio. It is a synthesis of recent research findings organized to provide the scientific basis upon which a town or municipality could begin the task of defending a riparian setback ordinance from legal and other other challenges. http://www.crwp.org/pdf_files/riparian_setback_paper_jan_2006.pdf

Similarly, a new EPA report, “Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations”, provides a synthesis of existing scientific literature on the effectiveness of riparian buffers to improve water quality through their inherent ability to process and remove excess anthropogenic nitrogen from surface and ground waters.
http://www.epa.gov/ada/download/reports/600R05118/600R05118.pdf

Alan Levine
Coast Action Group

S.C. General Plan Update Hearings

Published
by
Larry
on February 6, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

UPDATE: the most recent information I have on what is to be done at future GP update meetings. The further away the date, the less accurate the information. Note the beginning time change on the 23rd. The Chairman asked to add an hour to our deliberations, so we’re going to begin earlier assuming all the Commissioners are available.

2/6 or 2/13
Possible Open Space Element review continuation. Other unfinished issues (see above) will likely continue.

2/15 6:00 PM @ either PRMD or the Board of Supervisors’ hearing room: The Planning Commission will hold a workshop/hearing on digital zoning mapping. It will be partly instructive on how to use the soon to be web released digital mapping, and there may be some zoning map corrections. This will be a noticed hearing for public input and is not directly related to the GP update.

We still do not have a date for possible presentations and deliberations on the Open Space & Resource Conservation Element focused on the Biotic and Riparian sections. An effort will be made to hold this meeting in a larger venue than the PRMD multi-purpose room.

Nothing is specified after this date. Perhaps we’ll know more in a week or two. The Commission has scheduled meetings every Tuesday evening through February.

The revisions to the DEIR are being completed, but no release date has been announced. Staff announced that they expect to take 3 or 4 weeks after the final Draft GP2020 deliberation by the Commission to conclude their changes to the DEIR and determine if there is a need for recirculation. There is no presumption that recirculation will be required at this time, although there seems to be some discussion about the possibility.

Stay warm, drive safely, and enjoy these crisp winter days,
Rue

Introduction to Well Monitoring

Published
by
Larry
on February 6, 2007
in Groundwater
. 0 Comments

Hey Ya’ll,
I was surfing my old files and found this great document by Stephen and others?, about how to monitor your well and felt compelled to send it out as a recycled resource once again based on the current discussion and shrill by some on this idea of well monitoring. Maybe Stephen has an updated version or…?
Brock intro_to_well_monitoring.pdf

Agricultural Footprint — Big And Getting Bigger

Published
by
Larry
on February 2, 2007
in Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

There are surprisingly large hidden costs to hot dogs, burgers, milk, and other animal products, finds a new report entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow. Prepared by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome, the report notes that animal agriculture is the second or third biggest contributor to “the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” The report’s authors calculate that live-stock production taps 8 percent of all fresh water used by humanity, primarily to irrigate feed crops. Farmed animals - now 20 percent of the total mass of land animals - are also edging out species and cutting biodiversity The report observes that 30 percent of the land that these livestock now occupy once nurtured wildlife. Livestock production is also having a growing influence on climate. Animal farming accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, making it a bigger contributor than transportation. For instance, livestock are responsible for 9 percent of carbon dioxide releases associated with human activities, mostly as woodlands are burned around the globe for pastures or to create fields to grow feed. Moreover, 37 percent of all human-induced methane comes from livestock. Molecule-for- molecule, this major greenhouse gas contributes 23 times as much to global warming as carbon dioxide does. The new report was not issued “simply to blame” livestock managers, but to encourage less-damaging practices, says Samuel Jutzi, director of the Food and Agricultural Organization’s animal program. Among his group’s recommendations: Calculate the cost of goods and services provided to animal agriculture by the environment and pass them along to live-stock farmers. Not doing so, the report argues, fosters pollution and over exploitation of resources.

Science News January 13, 2007 Vo. 171. No. 2

Wetlands and Watersheds Articles Online

Published
by
Larry
on February 2, 2007
in Groundwater, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge
. 0 Comments

THIS JUST IN: Article 1 of the Wetlands and Watersheds Article Series Wetlands and Watersheds Article 1: “Direct and Indirect Impacts of Urbaization on Wetland Quality” reviews the current state of wetland science as it pertains to impacts from urbanization and explores the potential management implications for local natural resource managers and land use planners. More than 100 studies reviewed for this article discuss direct and indirect impacts of land development on wetlands and the key role wetlands play in watershed quality. An article summarizing this report was featured in the January/February 2007 issue of the National Wetlands Newsletter published by Environmental Law Institute (ELI).

Be sure to check out ELI on the web (http://www.eli.org) and the Center’s wetlands and watersheds website (http://www.cwp.org/wetlands/index.htm) for more information on wetlands management and the articles mentioned here.

Center Publication Offerings For 2007, there are many exciting new changes to our publications catalog! Many publications are now available for free download, some items now have a file download version, and a few items are being offered that haven’t been made available for individual sale in several years.

Among these is Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems, which is available in print for the first time since its original release in 2003. This book is a comprehensive exploration of more than 225 multi-disciplinary studies documenting the hydrological, physical, water quality, and biological impacts of urbanization and its accompanying impervious cover. Covering many different eco-regions, climatic zones and stream types and with more than 100 graphics and tables, this 150-page report represents the Center’s most thorough examination of imperviousness to date. To order: http://www.cwp.org/PublicationStore/TechResearch.ht

EPA and State TMDL Clarification

Published
by
Larry
on February 2, 2007
in Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

A few questions have come up about the recently-published State TMDL list and schedule, and I thought it would be helpful to make a clarification or two. If you are not concerned about TMDL development on the Mad River, please delete this email.
EPA is on track to establish sediment and turbidity TMDLs for the Mad River by late 2007. Our consultant, Tetra Tech/Graham Matthews & Associates, has collected turbidity data in the 2005/06 winter and is currently continuing collection of turbidity data for the 2006/07 winter. They are also working on the sediment source analysis, which includes a landslide inventory and compilation of information to model surface and fluvial erosion. Information will be used to develop a sediment budget for the watershed. Once we have additional information completed on the sediment source analysis and TMDL development process (expected in late spring/early summer), we will identify a date and location to present that information to the public. Meeting details will be made available to the public.

Generally, the State will adopt a TMDL developed by EPA after developing an implementation plan. EPA’s TMDL will not include an implementation plan, as the implementation is a State responsibility. EPA has neither the responsibility nor the authority to implement a TMDL. The primary difference between an EPA-established TMDL and State-adopted TMDL is the inclusion of an implementation plan in the State TMDL.

EPA is operating under a Consent Decree to develop TMDLs for sediment
and turbidity on the Mad River in 2007. This schedule is not
expected to change.

TMDL development otherwise is a State responsibility. Through the process of developing its list of water-quality limited waterbodies (otherwise known as the 303(d) list), the State identifies waterbodies that are in need of a TMDL, and develops a schedule to develop that TMDL. Through this process, the State identified a need to develop TMDLs for the Mad River for sediment, turbidity, and temperature. They have identified that they will develop these TMDLs no later than 2019. This is independent of EPA’s TMDL development for sediment and turbidity in 2007. As previously discussed, EPA will not develop a temperature TMDL.

The State of California will develop TMDLs for sediment, turbidity and temperature. EPA will not be involved in that process, other than to review and approve or disapprove the TMDLs that the State submits to EPA. The State’s TMDL development process also includes opportunities for public participation. Matt St. John at the North Coast Regional Board is currently the main contact for the development of those TMDLs.

I hope this is helpful. If you have questions, concerns or
clarifications, you may contact me. If you have questions, concerns
or clarifications about the State process, you may contact Matt St. John
at 707-570-3752, or email at mstjohn@waterboards.ca.gov.

Janet Parrish
US EPA, WTR-2
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-972-3456

Yes! this is a little confusing.

The way I read it is:

The Mad River TMDL for Sediment is to be done by the EPA - on schedule by 2007 (as per the Consent Decree). EPA TMDLs are Technical and have no Action/Implementation Plans. EPA TMDLs do have suggested targets for pollution control that should be considered by project (THPs & Conversions, Ordinance development, development projects) environmental documents. Thus, appropriate comment by interested parties should be added to the file.

As the Mad River was just recently added to the list for Temperature Impairment, this impaiment is to be handled by the State (Regional Board) promulgated TMDL. State TMDLs must have Action/Implementation plans.

It is somewhat illogical to separate Sediment and Temperature TMDLs as the two impairments are interrelated. Dealing with one impairment can not be successfully addressed without dealing with the other. When the State (RB) does their Action/Implementation Plan there should be a nexus.

This is my understanding. If found to be incorrect, please clarify.

You asked that I copy you on this. Im not sure why I received it. I was surprised to see a TMDL completion date of 2019! I suspect EPA is agreeing to do the sediment TMDL but not the temperature TMDL due the sediment being part of the earlier consent decree with temperature probably added afterwards. I will do some follow up on this but it looks like both the state and EPA are attempting to sidestep their responsibility to actually make some changes in the river to address the impairments. You might copy your Napa attorneys for comment.
Daniel