Northern California River Watch Activist’s Blog
To All,
Click on the link below to see what Sonoma County’s Planning has prepared for its General Plan through 2020. From there, you can check out the Table of Contents and pick an area of concern. There is a meeting Wednesday, August 1, from 6 to 9 pm, at the Santa Rosa library where staff will make a presentation and answer questions.
–Larry
REMINDER: Hold AUGUST 1st for next General Plan meeting!
Hello all-
Just a quick reminder that we have a big, important strategy meeting coming up on the General Plan on Wednesday August 1st from 6:00-9:00pm. Location in downtown Santa Rosa, TBA. Please make every effort to attend, as we need your support and engagement in this process as the General Plan goes before the Board of Supervisors from August 20-September 20.
This will be the chance for our group to get back together to discuss the imminent hearings at the Board of Supervisors, and what has happened at the Planning Commission hearings.
DRAFT AGENDA
6:00-7:00: Bob Gaiser and Greg Carr (possibly Scott Briggs and Jennifer Barrett) will be in attendance to speak to us about:
- The current state of the Draft General Plan
- Changes that were made at the Planning Commission
- The process of hearings at the Board
- and answer any questions
7:00-8:00: we will re-group to focus on specific areas on interest in the General Plan, and to present important policies that we must see included in the General Plan for the future of Sonoma County.
8:00-9:00: we will discuss strategy for grassroots turn-out, media awareness, and lobbying on these important issues.
Board of Supervisors hearings start on August 20th, so we haven’t much time! Please make sure to attend this meeting! Please RSVP to let me know if you will attend.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Daisy Pistey-Lyhne
Sonoma-Marin Field Representative
Greenbelt Alliance
555 5th Street, Ste. 300B
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
phone: (707) 575-3661
fax: (707) 575-4275
daisypl@greenbelt.org
www.greenbelt.org
The letter attached in rtf format and pasted below was sent today. SCWC letterhead was used for the signed original sent by snail mail. The letterhead footer included all current SCWC organizations except CNPS and LWV. Their abstentions from last week were not converted to votes in favor by our deadline of yesterday at noon. All other abstentions were converted to votes in favor.
Thanks everyone.
Stephen
Russian River County Sanitation District
c/o Sonoma County Water Agency
P.O. Box 11628
Santa Rosa, CA 95406
July 18, 2007
Re: Russian River County Sanitation District Irrigation Reliability and Beneficial Reuse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.
The Sonoma County Water Coalition (SCWC) includes more than 30 organizations representing more than 25,000 concerned citizens.
SCWC believes that the proposed Russian River County Sanitation District Irrigation Reliability and Beneficial Reuse Project may not meet the long-term water management needs of western Sonoma County, and, if approved and implemented, will require significant mitigation to avoid severe environment impacts.
There are various questions that require answers before the public and other agencies can properly evaluate this project:
Project Scale:
According to the DEIR, this project is intended to solve a problem created by the inadequacy of the existing 38 acres used for spreading wastewater on the Burch property and 41 acres at the Northwood Golf Course. The project envisages an enlarged spreading area of what appears from maps included in the DEIR to be in excess of 2,000 acres, 32 miles of pipelines, up to 1,000,000 gallons of storage tanks, pumps and other installations. A 100-acre redwood irrigation project in the Guerneville area would be more than enough to serve as an adequate alternative project to satisfy the needs of this system. The project would therefore appear to be an over-enthusiastic solution to the stated problem and may induce growth in the west county. There seems to be a mismatch between the scale of the project and the need that it is addressing. What are the unstated growth objectives in the Guerneville, Occidental and Camp Meeker areas that this wastewater project is intended to serve?
Inter-subbasin Movement of Water:
Wastewater intended for this project will all be generated within the lower Russian River basin. Significant land area intended for irrigation by this project is in the Green Valley basin. There are therefore concerns that the project will cause significant imbalances in the hydrology and have impacts on the groundwater and surface water quality of Green Valley Creek. Green Valley Creek provides habitat for coho salmon, steelhead and other sensitive species. What studies have been done to address this issue?
Spheres of Influence:
Approximately 200 acres of agricultural land proposed for irrigation by this project in the lower Green Valley basin is also proposed for irrigation by treated wastewater generated by the Graton Community Services Wastewater Treatment facility. This potential conflict is mentioned in the DEIR. How will it be resolved?
Cumulative Impact of This Project and Other Projects
What is the cumulative impact of this project, proposed projects to upgrade and expand the RR CSD plant to include disinfection and to construct a new 4.5 million gallon storage equalization basin, and projects involving wastewater from Occidental and Camp Meeker?
Cost Estimates:
It is noticeable that this DEIR does not include an engineering report and provides estimates neither of capital cost nor of operating costs. How much will it cost to build this project? Who will pay these capital costs? How much will it cost to operate the project? Who will pay these operating costs? What will be the financial terms now or in the future of agreements with owners of land irrigated by wastewater generated by this project?
Accumulation of Pollutants in Soils and Food Crops:
Treated wastewater intended to be used for irrigation within the project area will contain detectable levels of endocrine-disrupting personal care products, hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals and other as yet unregulated emerging contaminants. These pollutants may accumulate in soils and in food crops. What monitoring programs will be included in this project to assess and manage this impact?
Accumulation of Pollutants in Groundwater:
Treated wastewater intended to be used for irrigation within the project area will contain detectable levels of endocrine-disrupting personal care products, hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals and other as yet unregulated emerging contaminants. These pollutants will accumulate in groundwater. What monitoring programs will be included in this project to assess and manage this impact?
Incidental Run-off:
Treated wastewater intended to be used for irrigation within the project area cannot reliably meet Basin Plan discharge requirements for wetlands or instream flows. Application rates of treated wastewater may exceed the ability of soils to absorb and plants to transpire all wastewater applied. This may result in incidental run-off to rivers and creeks. The project must therefore include a third-party monitoring program to assess and prevent this impact. What plans have been made for this?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
This DEIR must also address greenhouse gas emissions produced directly and indirectly by the various alternatives, and a demonstrable, valid and measurable program for reducing or eliminating any new greenhouse gas emissions as a result of this project. (See, for example, California Attorney General v. City of Bakersfield, for guidance in how to address this.)
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and await your responses in due course.
Sincerely,
Stephen Fuller-Rowell
Sonoma County Water Coalition
By Dan Shapley
News Editor
The Daily Green, June 2007
More than 10 years after being directed to do so by Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency will test 73 pesticides for their potential to damage the endocrine system and disrupt the normal functioning of hormones in the body, the agency announced this afternoon in a short conference call with reporters.
More than 2,000 chemicals are introduced to the American marketplace every year, and most are not screened for toxicity, according to watchdog groups. Even those that are, frequently, do not get tested for endocrine disrupting potential.
The EPA will test 73 pesticides that people most often come into contact with in homes and workplaces — including pesticides that have been found in trace amounts on foods, and in drinking water. The EPA chose the chemicals from among 690 that people may be exposed to in homes, at work, by eating food or drinking water.
The 73 chemicals that show the potential to disrupt the endocrine system during a battery of tests that will be developed this year, then subjected to peer review. Actual testing won’t take place until 2008, and any chemicals determined to have potential endocrine disrupting ability will be subjected to a second round of more intensive testing. The public can comment on the draft list of chemicals for 90 days, after which the EPA will consider the comments, make any changes it deems necessary, and then begin to develop the tests.
“Ultimately this program will determine whether these chemicals disrupt the endocrine system,” said Jim Gulliford, the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. He said the data collected would be “comprehensive and scientifically sound.”
Critics said the EPA’s program has been delayed for no legitimate reason, that studies already show several chemicals meet criteria to be considered endocrine disruptors and that some of the testing protocols the EPA has proposed are flawed. The EPA was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1999 for missing early deadlines in the Congressionally mandated program. The list published today was first supposed to be issued in 1997, and after the court settlement with NRDC, was to be published in 2002, according to NRDC scientist Sarah Janssen.
“We already have enough infomation about many of these chemicals on the list to know they’re endocrine disruptors without putting them through a Tier I screening which is probably going to be delayed for probably two years,” Jenssen said.
The endocrine system is made up of hormones, the various glands that produce them, and the many bodily functions regulated by the chemical messengers. Chemicals that mimic, block or disrupt the normal function of hormones are known as endocrine disruptors.
Animal studies have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting effects of several once-common industrial chemicals and pesticides. Many other chemicals are suspected of having endocrine-disrupting potential. The effects on humans are, largely, unknown, but health and environmental advocates say it’s wise to limit exposure to many chemicals, particularly women of childbearing age, pregnant women and children under the age of 15.
The American Chemistry Council called the EPA’s announcement an “important milestone,” but cautioned that the agency still has to finalize its testing procedures.
“Additionally, we echo EPA’s statement that this is a candidate list of substances to screen for potential interaction with the endocrine system,” the industry group said in a prepared statement. “It is not a list of endocrine disruptors or potential endocrine disruptors and EPA has not determined the potential endocrine related risks of the substances.”
In all, there are thousands chemicals that must be screened as directed by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition to 1,077 active ingredients, there are more than 5,000 inactive and inert ingredients in pesticides used in the United States.
“All pesticide chemicals must be tested, both active and inert ingredients,” said Clifford Gabriel, the EPA’s director of the Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
Silvia K. Müller
Mühlwiesenstr. 2
55743 Kirschweiler
Germany
Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh
Tests of river fish indicate their flesh carries enough estrogen-mimicking chemicals to cause breast cancer cells to grow.
Many streams, rivers and lakes already bear warning signs that the fish caught within them may contain dangerously high levels of mercury, which can cause brain damage. But, according to a new study, these fish may also be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow.
“Fish are really a sentinel, just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago,” says Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. “We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use.”
Volz and colleagues, including biochemist Patricia Eagon, took samples from 21 catfish and six white bass donated by local anglers as part of a study presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles this week. The fish were caught in five places: a relatively unpolluted site 36 miles upstream from Pittsburgh on the Allegheny River; an industrial site on the Monongahela River; an Allegheny site downstream from several industries that release toxic chemicals; and the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, where Pittsburgh dumps much of its treated sewage and sewer outflows.
“This is the largest concentration of combined sewer outflows in the U.S.,” Volz notes, about the confluence, known as the Point. The researchers also bought several fish at the store as controls. Scientific American, April 17, 2007
Hi everyone!
Some of you were wondering if the environmental challenge to Santa Rosa’s NPDES permit, lead by Alan and others, was also dismissed. I thought it was, but here is Alan’s verification.
Forgive duplications. I can generally support Alan’s comments, but the devil is in the details. This business of incidental runoff in the summer is still a big problem in my mind. It will take stringent controls and a lot of management to prevent significant long term problems.
I want to thank Alan and Mike Lozeau for the work on this permit challenge. I feel this dismissal is very good news, even though the permit is less than perfect.
Have a nice day.
Brenda
Dear Council Members and Creek Managers:
As you can see by the attached notice, the Petition (appeal) to the
State Water Resources Control Board by the City of Santa Rosa for
relief of responsibility to meet standards imposed by the current
NPDES/Waste Water Discharge Permit has been dismissed.
Obviously, the SWRCB and the Regional Board think the current NPDES
permit is fair and essential to the task of recovering beneficial
uses of water in the Laguna.
Both the Laguna and Santa Rosa Creek remain on the State’s Impaired
Water Bodies (303 d) list.
It is incumbent (the City is responsible) for the City to address
issue related to discharge of pollutants into the Laguna and Santa
Rosa Creek. The City will be held physically and financially
accountable for any failures in this area. Efforts by the City’s
consultants, to the tune of millions of dollars, to evade such
responsibility can be better spent in by addressing pollutant control issues.
The City has made some progress in their Stormwater (Non-Point
Source) program, recycling, and creek management. Though progress has
been made and acknowledged (thank you for your efforts) - greater
efforts and successes are mandatory.
Improvements can be made in the following areas:
Better management for Santa Rosa Creek as a functioning stream. Use
of Santa Rosa Creek sole as a storm drain for “flood control”
purposes will not allow recovery. Let your own biologists guide
you. Improvement in management can occur without spending tons of
money. Improving riparian filtration would help a lot.
Better enforcement of your Stormwater - Non-Point Source control
plan. You have made progress - but - more enforcement is needed - in
including strict standards for discharge from impervious surface
areas. Your own building inspectors should be trained to spot and
enforce issue. Greater effectiveness in this area would help limit
pollutant inputs.
Water Recycling should be strongly encouraged. I know you are trying
to move forward in this area. More can be done. Safety systems to
protect from accidental discharge of recycled water need to be in place.
Please consider incorporation of these ideas and - below:
New - Encourage placement of water collection systems for homes and
impervious surface areas. These systems can help, both, with water
use, peak discharge control, and pollution control.
New - Use of waste water to irrigate City owned Redwood
plantation(s). This can pencil out in the long run - even if David
Smith says no.
Carry On !
Alan Levine
The SWRCB meeting [Enforcement Workshop] seemed to go OK.
The regulated community took the line that we are trying to conform, but we need consistent direction from the Board - please to not enforce with Draconian measures on those applying for permits. (this is, in part, true. Sorting the good ones from the bad ones will be difficult).
It was pointed out in some systems (e.g. the Russian River) assessment of total diversions (permitted and un-permitted) related to total available water (and degree of over-allocation) needs to occur. The SWRCB has no finite knowledge of what the reality is and what flows are needed to protect beneficial uses - nor the staff to get this done on any one river; much less on a state wide basis.
Nevertheless, the Board seems interested in moving forward in certain areas.
Any ideas? Write the Board.
Alan
Dear Stream and Wetland Systems Protection Policy list members,
Attached is a Draft Report on Stream and Wetland Systems Science that has
been prepared by staff of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Regional Water Board). This report is also available online at the
Regional Water Board’s website for the policy:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/programs/basinplan/swspp.html
The draft report summarizes part of the scientific literature that staff has
reviewed during its background research for the Stream and Wetland Systems
Protection Policy (Policy) and is being provided to the public as an
informational document. Although information contained in the draft report
may eventually be used in the Staff Report for the Policy to establish part
of the scientific justification or basis for the Policy, the draft report
does not provide the full scientific basis or justification for the Policy
and should not be interpreted as the Staff Report itself.
Staff welcomes comments on the draft report, but formal public review and
comments are not being solicited at this time and staff will not prepare
formal responses to comments received on the draft report. Formal public
comments will be solicited on the Staff Report when it is released and staff
will prepare formal responses to comments received on the Staff Report at
that time. Release of Staff Report and draft Basin Plan amendment language
and the public review and comment period for those documents are anticipated
to occur later this year or in early 2008.
For more information about the proposed Stream and Wetland Systems
Protection Policy, please contact Bruce Ho at BHo@waterboards.ca.gov or
707-576-2460. You can subscribe or unsubscribe from this list by visiting
the following website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/email.html
This is a message from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
North Coast Region (1).
Hello,
I would like to let you know about two exciting SRF events that are happening this summer. First, this July 24 -27 we will have our Second Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium on the gorgeous and wild (Cal) Salmon River. The Symposium will follow right on the heels of the annual Salmon River Spring-run Chinook and Summer Steelhead Dives, and will be immediately followed by the Jammin’ for the Salmon music festival. Good times for all! We are thrilled to be coordinating this event with the fun and dedicated folks at the Salmon River Restoration Council and Mid-Klamath Watershed Council, who invest so much energy into this important California watershed and its associated salmonids.
Symposium PSA:
Salmon River Dives (July 24-25) and Spring-run Chinook Symposium (July 26-27)
Nordheimer Campground, Salmon River, California
Salmonid Restoration Federation is proud to join with the Salmon River Restoration Council in offering the 2nd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium in concert with the Salmon River Spring Chinook Dives. Please join us on the beautiful Salmon River July 24-27 for training and dives, workshops, field tours and presentations on challenges and tools specific to Spring-run Chinook restoration in California, fish identification, snorkel surveys, watershed education, life history investigations, limiting factors, FERC relicensing, fish disease, and conservation management. Renowned fisheries biologist, Peter Moyle, will offer a presentation on Spring-run Chinook recovery efforts. Stay Saturday July 28 for the Jammin’ for the Salmon benefit concert.
For more information or to register, please contact SRF at (707)923-7501 or srf@calsalmon.org.
Then, August 17-19 we are teaming with Trees Foundation, Mattole Restoration Council, Mattole Salmon Group and Sanctuary Forest to produce the 10th Annual Coho Confab in the lovely Mattole watershed where it all began. The field tour, workshop and presenter line-up for this Confab are out-standing! And as a bonus, sweet-voiced Joanne Rand and the Rhythm of the Open Hearts Band will serenade all on Saturday evening.
Confab PSA:
10th Annual Coho Confab August 17-19, 2007 in Petrolia, CA on the North Coast
Salmonid Restoration Federation, Trees Foundation, Mattole Restoration Council, Mattole Salmon Group and Sanctuary Forest will sponsor the 10th annual Coho Confab August 17-19, 2007 in Petrolia on the North Coast of California. The Confab is a symposium to explore watershed restoration and learn techniques to enhance recovery of salmon and steelhead. Workshops include underwater fish identification, water flow monitoring, conservation easements and stories and songs of salmon. Field tours include site visits from the headwaters to the estuary of the Mattole watershed.
The Confab brings together community members, landowners, activists, scientists, and restoration ecologists for a weekend of innovative skills-building workshops, hands-on tours of restoration projects, community networking, and fun. To learn more about this year’s Confab or to inquire about scholarship opportunities, please visit www.calsalmon.org or call SRF at (707) 923-7501.
We look forward to seeing you at these great events!!
Heather Reese
Project Coordinator
Salmonid Restoration Federation
PO Box 784
Redway, California 95560
(707) 923-7501
heather@calsalmon.org
Draft Talking Points for SCWC Meeting w/PRMD 7/25/07
The need a grading ordinance and county wide stormwater plan to comply with TMDLs and meet Basin Plan/Water Code water quality objectives.
Below is the latest version of the eight most significant GP2020 water issues we will discuss with PRMD representatives on Wednesday July 25. These issues are based upon our Planning Commission comment letter dated Aug 9, 2006 and include fine-tuning from last night.
Stephen
Problem:
Draft Water Resource Element no longer addresses cumulative impact on groundwater of wells supplying single-family homes and agriculture.
Solutions:
1. Restore proposed well monitoring program in all areas including water-scarce areas, or strengthen Policy WR-2g to include specific mention of water-scarce areas, a 2-year deadline to implement the policy and a binding affirmative verb.
2. Include new policy in Groundwater section:
The County shall establish specific and comprehensive groundwater management plans for groundwater basins in the County including but not limited to: the Santa Rosa Valley, Sonoma Valley, Petaluma Valley, the Alexander Valley, Knights Valley, the Wilson Grove Formation Highlands bordering the Laguna de Santa Rosa and the Gualala Basin pursuant to AB3030.
3. Add provision for building moratoria in special study areas until overdraft reversed:
The County shall suspend permit approvals (that would increase water use) within special study areas until a comprehensive groundwater assessment is completed and groundwater declines are reversed.
4. Halt well drilling in overdrafted basins:
The County shall deny permits for new and replacement groundwater wells in basins or subbasins in which the cumulative impact of existing water users has created a condition of unreversed groundwater decline.
5. Use SCWA leverage:
County agencies shall coordinate with all cities and other organizations that both receive water from S.C.W.A. and pump groundwater within Sonoma County to formulate and implement groundwater management plans pursuant to AB3030 within five years of the adoption of this General Plan update.
Problem:
Draft Water Resource Element must do more to protect groundwater recharge areas.
Solution:
1. Include new policy in Groundwater section:
Establish requirements for new construction to halt loss of groundwater recharge capacity of aquifers caused by construction that increases impervious surfaces. Proactive measures are required to reduce negative impacts of impervious surfaces and encourage land use practices that increase natural groundwater recharge. These requirements shall be incorporated in appropriate construction standards including without limitation building codes administered by the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department.
Problem:
Export controls in Water Resource Element must be strengthened. The proposed policy WR-5c does not do the job.
Solution:
1. Include new policy in Importing and Exporting section:
No water shall be exported to locations outside Sonoma County unless the County has issued a permit for such exportations. In the event a permit is issued, it shall set forth with specificity the details of the exportations (e.g. quantity, origination location, destination location, period of exportation, etc.).
Problem:
Draft Water Resource Element must do more to protect water quality.
Solutions:
1. Establish water quality goals and objectives that support the current Basin Plans.
2. Include new policy in Water Quality section:
Establish a public education program to raise awareness of the need for source reduction and source control of contaminants used in the home and office.
Problem:
Conservation section of Water Resource Element needs additional language. Frequent letters to newspapers are from water users complaining about being asked to conserve water when they believe that all the water they save will simply be used to fuel more growth.
Solutions:
1. Include new educational policy:
Support public education programs to provide all County residents with information regarding the finite nature of water resources and guidance for the sustainable use of that resource.
2. Include new policy to allow environment to benefit from conservation:
Give higher priority to water conservation, efficiency and reuse than to developing new water sources, and dedicate most of the water saved to the environment by leaving it untapped in source groundwater and surface water.
Problem:
Restrictions on Package Treatment Plants need to be strengthened in the Public Facilities Element.
Solution:
1. Include new policy:
Permit package treatment plants only when they are consistent with the General Plan and when needed to alleviate an existing public health hazard; establish operating procedures, treatment standards and monitoring programs for all plants; require that any package treatment plant discharging more than 1,200 gallons of wastewater per day, or any plant in a State identified groundwater recharge area, treat water to levels suitable for human consumption; require that bonds be posted or sinking funds established to provide for repair, removal or replacement of package treatment plants reaching the end of their intended service life.
Problem:
Riparian corridor protections need to be strengthened in the Biotic Resources element.
Solution:
Riparian zones with healthy native vegetation must be protected and re-established within the county. All perennial and intermittent streams must have adequate riparian corridors in which uses are restricted and native vegetation is encouraged.
Problem:
Many good policies in draft GP2020 are weakened by weasel words.
Solutions:
1. Remove most phrases such as ‘where practical’ and ‘to the maximum extent practicable’.
2. Include more affirmative time-delimited language in critical policies.