Monthly Archive for December, 2008

CCWI on Water Testing in Russian River System

Hello everyone!

We’d like to start out by saying we are really excited to share the results of the first study for our new Lower Russian River watershed monitoring and outreach program! As we all know our County’s drinking water comes from this watershed basin, and in fact many Marin residents get their water from here too, totaling roughly 600,000 people!

There are endangered salmon in the river and surrounding streams as well. Coho, Chinook, and steelhead are all federally listed and all have critical spawning habitat within this watershed.

This is a pretty important place, and with threats like the new vineyard and orchard ordinance that our County’s Supervisors just passed, we have to keep a close eye on it. The vineyard ordinance will remove the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from the planning and reviewing process for many vineyard and orchard developments. We, as the public, will have no say and will not be able to be a part of this process, and regulations on land use and management will be minimal. This is scary because we were threatened with the Cornell Winery proposal in the upper Mark West Creek area. This proposal received overwhelming public comment and was halted till January 09, an example of the power of CEQA.

There are things we can do about this! Writing letters to the local newspapers is always a good way to express your distaste with local decisions, especially when the decision is to omit us from decisions!

A Supervisor watch is being coordinated and if interested, CCWI can gladly put you in contact with the right person. The last Board of Supervisors election left many of us fearful of what is to come and this watch would involve attending Planning Commission meetings and make sure these Supes aren’t planning to pull another stunt like the grading ordinance.

Another thing you can do is test the water. Make sure these vineyards and orchards aren’t already polluting them with sediment and fertilizers!

That’s what we’re doing and here are the sites and results of our 12/2/08 monitoring; Our sites; Our results;

Site ID Time Air Temp PH Water Temp Dissolved Oxygen Turbidity (NTU’s) Conductivity Microsiemens/cm

MWC012 12:58p 11 C 7.9 10.2 C 8.1 mg/l 6.28 490

MWC005 1:40p 11 C 7.7 9.9 C 7.93 mg/l * 6.21 490

RUS020 12:20p 12 C 8.2 12.1 C 10.97 mg/l * 1.33 280

* A stream with dissolved oxygen level of 7.93 mg/l can mean moderate to severe production impairment for salmon species.

* A dissolved oxygen reading of 10.97 mg/l suggests a healthy environment for salmon, with plenty of available oxygen for all life stages of these fish.

* Site ID Nitrate (NO3) Phosphate (PO4)

MWC012 .088 mg/l .273 mg/l *

MWC005 .093 mg/l .283 mg/l *

RUS020 .016 mg/l .019 mg/l

* These are concerning levels of phosphates. This can cause excessive growth of aquatic vegetation and can decrease the amount of dissolved oxygen in the stream. *

* The USEPA recommendation for streams is under .1 mg/l total phosphate. *

New sites: The Mark West Creek and Russian River confluence (Near MWC005) and the Russian River, downriver from the MWC and RR confluence (RUS020.) For any questions regarding the parameters we test contact our office or go to http://www.ccwi.org/resources/water_tests.html.

The data in red will be included in a pollution alert we release soon.

If you or anyone you know would like to be a part of our citizen monitoring program and our effort to protect our waterways from polluters please contact us (707) 824.4370! More information on this program can be found at www.ccwi.org. Best, Terrance Fleming Community Clean Water Institute Program Coordinator 707/824.4370 phone 707/824.4372 fax terrance@ccwi.org

Terrance

CCWI

Can Native Fish Species be Saved?

AMY COOMBS
DECEMBER 22, 2008

Spawning trout and salmon may be lost due to magnetic interference, soil erosion, and water use. Can they be found?

Can Native Fish Species be Saved?

Researchers now postulate that fish can take magnetic imprints of the streams in which they are born, and are thus able to find their way home to spawn. The findings bolster a report published by a local nonprofit-it shows the fish that fed the famous outdoor tourist industry now face extinction, and are in need of critical support.

The San Francisco-based California Trout, Inc. published a comprehensive review of the state’s native fish species in late November. After reviewing 32 independent, unaffiliated studies, they found that 65 percent of steelhead, salmon and trout will likely become extinct within the next 50 to 100 years, including three species found in the Central Coast. Known for its classic maroon sides and dark green heads, the Central California coast coho salmon is nearly extinct today, and is rarely spotted in local waters.

To help prevent future calamity, the organization recommends more stringent environmental laws and local protection efforts. “The report is a message of hope because there is still time left for people to wake up and rally around these fish,” says Scott Feierabend, interim executive director at CalTrout.

The problem is that reintroducing fish species may be more difficult than previously imagined. CalTrout’s report follows a wave of new studies on fish navigation-while many fish return to their home streams to spawn, hatchery fish often don’t fare as well. New findings suggest this may be due to magnetic imprints the fish use to navigate through the water.

“We propose that salmon and sea turtles form imprints of the unique magnetic signature in their area, and this is how they find their way back to their home,” says Kenneth Lohmann, a biologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “We found that some fish and turtles have the biologic equivalent of a GPS system that helps them with navigation.”

While past research has shown that fish can read magnetic signatures like humans read a compass, Lohmann recently demonstrated that a stream’s magnetic field remains consistent enough over time to serve as a reliable source of information for the fish. The findings were published this month in the academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

When Fish Get Lost at Sea

While chemical signals help salmon find their way back to specific stretches of river, they don’t diffuse into the ocean. This has long raised questions about the way fish find their original rivers and streams after straying miles up shore.

If magnetic sensing helps fish swim in the right direction along the coastline, and magnetic imprints help fish identify their starting points, this may help explain some of the problems fisheries face when repopulating empty rivers, says Lohmann. Fish introduced to a stream after birth might not ever learn to call it home, and fish born in hatcheries might be confused by the unique magnetic characteristic of the hatchery.

He speculates that rebar, the poles of metal that provide cement walls with structure, might interrupt the magnetic field that surrounds a growing fish. Pumps and other electrical devices used in hatcheries might also play a role. “It’s something that hasn’t been considered very much,” says Lohmann.

While more research needs to be done to test the impacts of hatchery electric fields on spawning fish, the growing body of evidence indicates that animals like turtles and fish are responsive to subtle electromagnetic changes. If returning fish search for the magnetic field associated with an upstream hatchery, they might pass by the river mouth-at least if it has a different magnetic signature.

Historically, even fish of the same species often don’t fare well when raised in hatcheries. While local nonprofits are trying their best to reintroduce coho salmon into the San Lorenzo River, the fish sometimes don’t return to the same area. Even fish that are caught from the wild and then bred in a hatchery don’t take hold.

“It’s hard when the native species goes into a threatened status,” says Bill Kocher, director of the Santa Cruz City Water Department. “You try to fool Mother Nature by raising fish, but even when we trap them and hatch the eggs, we don’t see returns of the hatchery fish.”

Declining local fish populations

While CalTrout’s new report doesn’t emphasize the problems faced by hatchery fish, there is a general agreement that preventing local fish extinctions is better than repopulating rivers after a species has died off. “We will do much better if we can prevent extinctions and local extirpations in the first place,” says Feierabend.

Two fish found along the Central Coast face extinction, says the report. The South-central California coast steelhead, which is found in the Pajaro River and other more southern watersheds, is primarily losing out due to alterations of natural stream flow patterns. Historic runs totaled more than 27,000 adults, but today there are fewer than 5,000 of the fish in California’s waters-during dry seasons this drops below 2,000.

A fish that shares a similar name, the Central California Coast steelhead, has also declined by as much as 90 percent in local streams. Fifty years ago, the San Lorenzo River supported 19,000 fish each year, and coastal tributaries were home to 24,000. The fish were listed as a federally endangered species in 1997, a finding that was reaffirmed in 2006. Due to water diversions, populations continue to dwindle. “Because these species are at the southernmost end of their range, they will also be impacted as water temperatures increase due to global warming,” says Feierabend.

Sedimentation is also named as a critical problem-as winter rains pour down in the Santa Cruz Mountains, soil loosened by development and road construction flows into rivers and streams. “Over time sediment has come down and filled in rocky places where fish used to rear,” says Kocher. “The pools in the rivers are becoming to shallow, and this impacts the water temperature.” Most fish need cool, deep pools in order to spawn and grow, and sedimentation changes both conditions.

Along with wells that detract from the base flow into rivers, and homes that use too much water from local streams, Kocher blames sedimentation and deforestation for the loss of local coho salmon runs over the last 30 years. Spawners typically grow to 30 inches long and weigh as much as 13 pounds, and the fish were a cornerstone of the Santa Cruz fishing industry. Tourists came from across the nation to catch local coho during fishing season.

“Sometimes there would be lines of fishermen three people deep-some fished in waders, some fished from shore and some would be scattered in between,” says John Ricker, the director of the Santa Cruz County Water Resources Division.

Today there are not enough local fish of any species to support a sporting industry, and according to CalTrout, the Central California coast coho salmon is nearly extinct. The southernmost population of remaining coho are in Scott and Waddell Creeks in Santa Cruz County, with the largest remaining population in Lagunitas Creek in Marin. A few scant populations can also be found in Mendocino.

Because the young rear for one to two years in cold-water streams, they need protective cover provided by falling trees, and as dense coastal rainforests have been logged, the fish have dwindled away. Although populations were partially revitalized in the early 20th century, modern efforts have been unsuccessful-likely due to sedimentation, and ongoing development of forested land, says Kocher.

The role played by magnetic fields in salmon reintroduction and migration is just beginning to gain attention, and while redesigning hatcheries might prove helpful, Lohmann says “there is no single approach that will solve the problem.”

To address water diversion and sedimentation problems, roads must be brought up to standard, pipes must be built to carry water under roadways, and native ground cover must be planted to prevent bare dirt from eroding. Adopting low flush toilets, planting native, drought-tolerant plants, and generally conserving water is also critical, says Feierabend.

While this won’t restore local waterways to their historic glory-the San Lorenzo used to be full enough that residents commuted into town from the Boardwalk by boat, after all-it might return enough water for the fish to make their runs.

Until this happens, Feierabend says the status of California’s native fish will serve as an emblem of the water problems of the Pacific coast. The report verified that without interventions taken, two-thirds of our native fish species will go extinct over the next 100 years. “The issue is not only about fish; it’s also about the health of California’s aquatic ecosystems,” says Lohmann. “The reports certainly seem to provide a thorough and careful analysis of the state of California’s native fish, and the outlook is alarming.” Fish Bailout

In the spirit of bailout packages, congress has set aside $170 million in aid for businesses impacted by the 2008 salmon season closure.

Salmon fishing on Central Valley rivers was entirely closed on July 3 in response to an unprecedented decline in the Sacramento River Fall Run Chinook population, which makes up the bulk of salmon caught off California’s coast.

A minimum of 122,000 to 180,000 salmon must return each year to spawn in order to maintain ocean and river fishing seasons. Otherwise there are not enough eggs left for hatcheries. Only 54,000 adults were projected to return this fall due to poor ocean conditions like high surface water temperature, and due to drought.

The California Salmon Council has been conducting outreach efforts to identify businesses eligible for relief. The collapse of the Sacramento River Fall Run Chinook salmon population has negatively impacted commercial fishermen and charter boat operators, as well as river guides and fish processors. Salmon-related enterprises that require a Department of Fish & Game license to operate have been sent disaster forms. Other eligible businesses need to file an application for relief before the Dec. 31 deadline. Disaster relief forms may be obtained online from the California Salmon Council website at calkingsalmon.org or the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission website at psmfc.org. Eligible businesses must demonstrate that salmon is at least 30 percent of their normal business. They must also provide documentation indicating their loss up to a maximum of $225,000.

2008: Year in Review for Impacts to California Water

Steve Adler
December 24, 2008

January

  • The state Air Resources Board proposed sweeping changes that would impact about 400,000 instate, on-road diesel vehicles and about 1.2 million vehicles from out of state.

March

  • Gov. Schwarzenegger introduced his water plan for California that included conservation, protection of delta levees, study of delta water conveyance and three surface-water storage projects.
  • A report from the California Department of Conservation, noted that from 1990 to 2002, about 280,000 acres of the state’s farmland were converted to urban uses, including about 96,600 acres of prime farmland.

April

  • U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger made several rulings in 2008 relating to declining fish numbers. The first came in April, when the judge found that a 2004 biological opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not adequately protect sensitive salmon populations when authorizing long-term operations of the state and federal water projects.

June

  • In an announcement that had a far-reaching impact on agriculture in 2008, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation cut water deliveries to farmers to 40 percent of contract amount, from the 45 percent declared previously. The sobering news caught many who farm on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley by surprise. They had planted crops based on the percentage of contract water announced earlier in the year.

July

  • Another ruling on salmon fisheries by Judge Wanger, who said, “The species are unquestionably in jeopardy. The (Endangered Species Act) does not permit jeopardy to a listed species to be considerably increased” as agencies rewrite a biological opinion for the fish.
  • The California water crisis stimulated a cascade of proposals to resolve the problem, including an announcement by Gov. Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein to qualify a $9.3 billion water bond for the ballot, a report by the Public Policy Institute of California that endorsed the idea of a peripheral canal, and a work plan by the State Water Resources Control Board that it said would increase its efforts to improve water quality and habitat in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

August

  • A court decision clarified and strengthened the Williamson Act, a key law that helps to conserve millions of acres of California farmland. The appeals court ruling corrected a misinterpretation that could have led to inconsistent enforcement and widespread residential development on contracted land.

September

  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it plans to quadruple the land area in California designated as critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.

October

  • The new state water year began on Oct. 1, but officials warned it will take several good water years to replenish California’s depleted supply. The federal Central Valley Project carried over about 3.9 million acre-feet of water, 35 percent of system capacity, into 2009.

November

  • Officials with the State Water Project announced a 15 percent water delivery allocation for 2009, the second lowest allocation in project history.
  • A new biological opinion by the National Marine Fisheries Service could place far-reaching restrictions on three common materials (chlorpyrifos, diazonin and malathion). The opinion represented the first of 34 additional pest control product evaluations that the NMFS is obligated by court order to issue before Feb. 29, 2012.

December

  • Several water agencies filed lawsuits against the California Department of Fish and Game to challenge emergency regulations that could impose drastic new restrictions on pumping water out of the delta to protect the longfin smelt.

Free Online Reference for Non-point Source Pollution

The NPS Encyclopedia is a free on line reference guide designed
to facilitate a basic understanding of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
control and to provide quick access to essential information from a
variety of sources by providing direct hyperlinks to resources
available on the World Wide Web (www.). References pertaining to
hyperlinks can be accessed by selecting (clicking) on the blue underlined
font. The purpose of this on line resource guide is to support the
implementation and development of NPS total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) and watershed (action) plans with a goal of protecting high
quality waters and restoring impaired waters. Please visit the NPS
Encyclopedia at its new location, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/encyclopedia.shtml

To ensure that the NPS Encyclopedia includes the most pertinent and
current information available, it will be updated annually. Comments and
suggestions for the addition of new material are accepted on a continual
basis. Please contribute; forward any questions, comments, or suggestions
to Molly Munz at MMunz@waterboards.ca.gov or (916) 341-5485.

RIVER OF RENEWAL WINS AWARD

RIVER OF RENEWAL WINS AWARD AT AMERICAN INDIAN FILM FESTIVAL

San Francisco, CA River of Renewal, a film describing the Klamath Basin tribes¹ struggle to establish fishing rights, restore river flows, and remove dams, won the Best Documentary Award at the American Indian Film Festival. The film’s title may be prophetic. Just two days before Saturday’s award ceremony in the Palace of Fine Arts, PacifiCorp signed an agreement in principle with the Secretary of the Interior and the governors of California and Oregon to remove the four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. River of Renewal follows Jack Kohler, a self described Œsidewalk Indian¹ who grew up in San Francisco. The audience follows Jack on a journey of self discovery in the land of his Karuk and Yurok ancestors. Jack learns not only about the ancient cultural traditions of his people, but also their modern day struggles to defend tribal rights and the Klamath River. ³The story moves from the fish wars of the 1970s to the current fight

to remove Klamath River dams,² explains Kohler. ³I hope audiences learn some of what I learned on my journey. Native People are still here performing their ceremonies, speaking their languages, fighting for their rights and making progress.² Using interviews, archival sources, and contemporary cinematography, River of Renewal documents acts of protest and civil disobedience by Klamath Basin stakeholders whose ways of life are jeopardized by the decline of the region’s wild salmon. These dramatic scenes include “protest fishing” by gillnetters in response to a federal ban on Indian fishing in 1978, the Bucket Brigade by Klamath Project farmers to protest a water cut-off complying with the Endangered Species Act in 2001, a commercial fisherman’s demonstration in San Francisco in response to the curtailment of the salmon fishing season in 2006, and guerrilla theater by tribal members who crashed Warren Buffett’s shareholders’ party this year to protest the refusal of Pacificorp, a subsidiary of his company Berkshire Hathaway, to agree to the removal of Klamath River dams. The nonbinding agreement that Pacificorp just signed does not require dam removal to begin until 2020, and numerous political and financial hurdles must be cleared before then. But if this plan succeeds, it will be the largest river restoration ever achieved.

CAL DFG NEEDS TO BE REFORMED–Here’s Why

To All,

CAL DFG NEEDS TO BE REFORMED IF CALIFORNIA SALMON ARE TO BE SAVED, STUDY FINDS: A University of California-Davis report released 19 November 2008 predicts that 65% of California’s native salmon species will be extinct within 100 years. The recreation and environmental advocacy group California Trout commissioned the study led by Dr. Peter Moyle, a prominent UC Davis biologist who is considered a top authority on California’s native salmon and trout species. The study took nearly 2 years to complete.

California is home to 32 varieties of salmon and trout, one already extinct and 29 already protected under endangered species law or designated for special protection. One of the two species left of those 32 is the Central Valley’s fall run chinook, which was considered a healthy population until so few returned to spawn last year that the commercial fishery had to be entirely shut down.

Salmon face a variety of obstacles in their anadromous life cycle, and Moyle points out that for the fish it’s “death by a thousand cuts.” The report attributes the decline to a variety of causes, including dams blocking spawning habitat, timber harvest, water diversions, poor water quality and siltation. Additionally, the report recommends radical reform of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), which is responsible for regulating the state’s fisheries and enforcing endangered species law. The report points out that the decline of this iconic fish happened under the CDFG’s watch, and if these species are going to be saved the agency needs better leadership and funding.

Read the 19 November Mercury News articles at www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11023480 and www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11024524 .

A 2 December Sacramento Bee article can be found at www.sacbee.com/378/story/1413033.html

The report itself can be found on California Trout’s website, www.caltrout.org < http:// www.caltrout.org/

Expert Sends Out SOS for California’s Fish

Mike Taugher, Contra Costa Times
11/19/2008

Salmon in trouble

Two-thirds of California’s native salmon, trout and steelhead are headed for extinction unless major changes are made to the way the state’s rivers are managed and protected, according to a report by one of the state’s top fish experts. “We have long records of decline and things are getting worse,” said Peter Moyle, a UC Davis biologist who wrote the report and is widely considered a top authority on California’s native fish. Of the 32 varieties of salmon, trout and steelhead in California, bull trout is already extinct. Of the rest, all but two are either protected under endangered species laws or designated for special consideration because they might require such protection. Moyle found that 20 of those salmon, steelhead and trout species could be extinct within 100 years but many are likely to be gone much sooner, Moyle said. “I was trying not to be too alarmist,” he said.

The causes of decline are numerous, including dams that block fish from spawning habitat, logging of redwood forests, water diversions, decreased water quality and siltation. Hatcheries are another leading cause, because breeding between wild fish and those raised in hatcheries has led to more homogenized populations. Salmon now tend to migrate more at the same time, Moyle said, and that leaves more fish vulnerable if there’s a pollution discharge that occurs as the fish pass through a river, for example. “It’s death by a thousand cuts syndrome,” Moyle said.

The report “SOS: California’s Native Fish Crisis” took two years to complete and grew out of conversations about how no one had taken a comprehensive look at the status of those fish. It was commissioned by California Trout, a recreation and environmental advocacy group. “I was surprised that nobody has done an overview of what’s happening to California trout and salmon. Nobody was looking at the big picture,” Moyle said.

In some ways, the report’s findings are not all that surprising. Last year, the most valuable of the state’s salmon runs — the Central Valley fall run chinook — collapsed so dramatically that regulators took the unprecedented step of closing a commercial fishery that up until recently was worth $100 million a year. Still, Moyle said the breadth of the problem was escaping notice because biologists all were focused on problems with the particular species and rivers in which they were interested. “You always had the feeling that somewhere there were good populations,” Moyle said. “Things were much worse off collectively than I thought they were.”

The most likely of the fish to go extinct within the next 50 years are chum salmon and pink salmon — which have never been common in California — and Central California coast coho salmon, which range from the Humboldt County coast to Santa Cruz. Those coho salmon have fallen victim to logging dating to the 19th century, water diversion and dams, all of which have damaged the creeks where the coho once thrived. “With the possible exception of the small population in the Lagunitas Creek watershed (in Marin County), Central California coast coho are on the verge of extinction,” the report says.

One of the least likely fish to go extinct is the Central Valley fall run chinook, which had been considered the backbone of the West Coast salmon fishery until it was closed this year. Enough fall run chinook remain to guard against extinction, but the return of a healthy salmon fishery is in doubt.

The report recommends major reform of the California Department of Fish and Game, a state agency responsible for regulating fisheries and enforcing the state’s endangered species laws. “This decline happened on their watch,” Moyle said. “They are an agency that has been underfunded and has never had strong leadership from the governor on down.” A call seeking a comment from the Fish and Game Department was not returned.

Baby Fish in Polluted San Francisco Estuary Waters Are Stunted and Deformed

UC Davis, 12/8/08

Striped bass in the San Francisco Estuary are contaminated before birth with a toxic mix of pesticides, industrial chemicals and flame retardants that their mothers acquire from estuary waters and food sources and pass on to their eggs, say UC Davis researchers.

Using new analytical techniques, the researchers found that offspring of estuary fish had underdeveloped brains, inadequate energy supplies and dysfunctional livers. They grew slower and were smaller than offspring of hatchery fish raised in clean water.

“This is one of the first studies examining the effects of real-world contaminant mixtures on growth and development in wildlife,” said study lead author David Ostrach, a research scientist at the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. He said the findings have implications far beyond fish, because the estuary is the water source for two-thirds of the people and most of the farms in California.

“If the fish living in this water are not healthy and are passing on contaminants to their young, what is happening to the people who use the water, are exposed to the same chemicals or eat the fish?” Ostrach said.

“We should be asking hard questions about the nature and source of these contaminants, as well as acting to stop the ongoing pollution and mitigate these current problems.”

The new study, published online Nov. 24 by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is one of a series of reports by Ostrach and UC Davis colleagues on investigations they began in 1988. Their goal is to better understand the reasons for plummeting fish populations in the estuary, an enormous California region that includes the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay.

The estuary is one of the world’s most important water supplies for urban use and agriculture, and is also one of the most contaminated aquatic ecosystems. The ominous decline in estuary populations of striped bass, delta smelt, longfin smelt and threadfin shad, named the “pelagic organism decline,” or POD, by the region’s environmental scientists, was first reported at the turn of the century and has continued to worsen through 2007.

Ostrach’s lab at UC Davis is part of the multi-agency POD research team and charged with understanding contaminant effects and other environmental stressors on the entire life cycle of striped bass.

Studies of striped bass are useful because, first, they are a key indicator of San Francisco Estuary ecosystem health and, second, because contaminant levels and effects in the fish could predict the same in people. For example, one of the contaminants found in the fish in this study, PDBEs, have been found in Bay Area women’s breast milk at levels 100 times those measured in women elsewhere in the world.

The new study details how Ostrach and his team caught gravid female striped bass in the Upper Sacramento River, then compared the river fishes’ eggs and hatchlings (larvae) to offspring of identical but uncontaminated fish raised in a hatchery.

In the river-caught fishes’ offspring, the UC Davis researchers found harmful amounts of PBDEs, PCBs and 16 pesticides.

PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) are widely used flame retardants; PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are chemicals once used in making a range of products, from paper goods to electric transformers; and the pesticides detected include some currently widely used in agriculture, such as chlorpyrifos and dieldren, and others banned decades ago, such as DDT.

These compounds are known to cause myriad problems in both young and adult organisms, including skeletal and organ deformities and dysfunction; changes in hormone function (endocrine disruption); and changes in behavior. Some of the effects are permanent. Furthermore, Ostrach said, when the compounds are combined, the effects can be increased by several orders of magnitude.

Ostrach’s co-authors Janine Low-Marchelli and Shaleah Whiteman are former UC Davis undergraduate students. Co-author Kai Eder was Ostrach’s postdoctoral scholar in Joseph Zinkl’s laboratory in the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

Since 1988, the Ostrach laboratory has received more than $1.5 million in funding from agencies working on Bay-Delta ecosystem problems and expects to conduct an additional $1.5 million worth of studies in the next few years. Key funders include the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, California’s Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board and Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco Estuary Institute and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Commenting Effectively on CEQA

Zeno

Thanks for bringing up this Review/Article on Commenting Effectively on an Environmental Document. This Review/Artice is very good in getting someone grounded in what can and can not be accomplished through CEQA.

I would add on:

CEQA review – will not necessarily stop a project. Though we can hope for that, in some cases.  In project review it is our job to hold the Lead Agency’s feet to the fire and try to get CEQA mandated attributes – Full Project description and analysis of affects related to a project, Discussion of full range of Project Alternatives, and an informed mitigatory process that addresses all issues and consistency with all laws and regulatory authority that would apply, and finally, monitoring of mitigation effectiveness.

Failure to adequately address CEQA mandates, under the law, are usually easily challengeable in the Courts.  This is a significant burden for the public bear. However, the rules are there and agency and government entity alike most often will perform when legal inconsistency is noted.

In some cases the application of CEQA can and does stop a project.  Project feasibility and financing become a more real hurdle and the project proponent and/or group of financial supports decide to leave the project.  I have seen it happen.

In many cases where State Agency is also the Lead Agency – CEQA and/or CEQA  functional equivalent of project review (when allowed under legislation) is less than what the law calls for.  It is our job to point that out and pursue full compliance with CEQA

I would also add:  While commenting on CEQA  your issue needs scientific or professional documentation – in the file of the project you are commenting on. You may use logical reasoning or inference (i.e. if numbers do not add up or the logic is incorrect), and Agency Comment or statement is considered professional opinion and/or science (as are related studies or other scientific documentation)

Finally, the endgame where CEQA has occurred appropriately, under the law (Public Resources Code) – even if the project is approved (and you hate it) it should be a better project for having gone through the process.

To  more effectively bootstrap CEQA issue and be more effective, I suggest:

Purchase of !) A Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or The Forest Practice Act and Related  Laws – both books published by Solano Press  (they have a web-site) and both books  will guide you trhough CEQA  with the Forest Practice Act Book also dealing with Fish and Game Code and the State Water Quality/Portor-Cologne Act.  Spend some money – usefully.

Enjoy!!!!!!

Alan
Alan,

From your wide experience, what can you add to this piece. I like to send it out on SonomaWildlife for people edification.

Zeno

****

From The Oak Report

Commenting Effectively on an Environmental Document
By Shaelyn Strattan, Calaveras County

First of all, what CEQA is NOT. CEQA is not all powerful. It cannot, by itself, stop a project from being approved. That power, in this county, belongs to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. It can, however, provide the information needed for those representatives to deny approval or require substantial changes to the project that would protect our community’s interests. The primary purpose of CEQA is to let the decision-makers and the public know what impacts the project will have on the environment, how much of an impact may occur, and what can be done to reduce those impacts.

It also isn’t just for “treehuggers”. Environment, as defined under CEQA, deals with physical changes that can affect an area. This includes effects of the project on traffic conditions; noise; the availability of sewer, water, and other utilities; air quality; fire and police protection; and how the proposed use may affect the use of surrounding properties. An environmental document should look at both direct and indirect impacts. Loss of water in a stream might not cause a problem at the project site, but could kill fish or interfere with irrigation several miles downstream. It must also look at cumulative impacts. How will the impacts of this project, combined with other projects in progress or planned for the foreseeable future, affect the community. A good CEQA document should look at all these concerns and should back up its conclusions with facts. A conclusion that isn’t supported is only an opinion.

CEQA also establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage, with an emphasis on prevention. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or ways available to substantially reduce potential impacts. However, it is also the responsibility of the Commission or Board to balance public needs, such as a decent home and satisfying living environment, with possible impacts to other parts of the environment. This is called “overriding consideration” and this can be used when, as Spock would say, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”.

Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Review of environmental documents offer interested governmental agencies, private individuals, and organizations an opportunity to consider a proposed project and share expertise; evaluate agency analyses; check for completeness and accuracy; identify areas of concern; and present alternative or additional options for consideration. (California Code of Regulations § 15200). A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or DEIR should not be considered a final document. In many cases, it is the first time interested parties have a chance to look at the project as a whole and should be seriously evaluated for any lack of evidence or consideration of alternative opportunities.

To comment effectively on an environmental document, it is not enough to say you don’t like the project. You’re entitled to your opinion, but that isn’t what CEQA is about. If you seriously want something in the project to change, you must be specific and back up your recommendations with facts. This is called a “fair argument” and, especially with MNDs, must be given serious consideration for the document to be considered adequate.

To comment effectively on an environmental document, consider the following points:

1. Objectively evaluate the project.

Consider the activities proposed as part of the project and determine if these actions will result in a direct or indirect impact or change to the physical environment. Would it be a negative impact? How? Why?

A project can include many elements over an extended period of time, such as demolition of existing buildings prior to the start of construction; or activities to close a mine or industrial site after many years of operation, including removal of structures and cleanup of any toxics in the soil or water. It can (or should) also include actions by others that are necessary because of the project, such as road repairs or culvert work, extension of water or sewer lines, etc. Make sure the project description takes all of these related activities into consideration.

Consider immediate and future impacts, and temporary and long term impacts. These are generally associated with both construction and operation of the proposed projects. Short term or temporary does not necessarily mean insignificant and the indirect impacts of a project, such as increased growth in an area or higher light levels at night may not be evident during construction or initial development.

If an impact will occur, will it be substantial or “significant”? Significance is determined by the difference between what currently exists and what will exist during or following completion of the project.

If you conclude there would be a significant adverse effect, does the document agree with that assessment? If not, why not or does it simply fail to discuss it at all?

If the impact is potentially significant, are there mitigations (ways to reduce the severity of the impact) included in the document? Will they reduce the impact to a less than significant level? For an MND, mitigations must reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. For an EIR, impacts must be reduced to the extent feasible. All mitigations for MNDs and EIRs must be feasible and enforceable.

If a potential significant impact has not, in your opinion, been adequately identified; if no mitigation has been proposed for a potentially significant impact; or if the mitigation proposed does not appear to be sufficient or appropriate, you should:

Identify the specific impact in question;
Explain why you believe the impact would occur;
Explain why you believe the effect would be significant; and, if applicable,
Explain what additional mitigation measure(s) or changes in proposed mitigations or to the project you would recommend.

Explain why you would recommend any changes and support your recommendations. Your reasons cannot simply be a subjective dislike for the project. You will need to objectively identify the deficiencies and explain the basis for your recommendations.

If you cannot support the project as a whole, be sure to identify why you oppose it and in as much detail as you can. Explain why it doesn’t work in your community or neighborhood. For example, if there are water or sewer issues, point out current problems and how this project will make them worse. Quantify your objections whenever possible. Don’t just complain. Include suggestions for making it better.

Economic issues are usually not addressed under CEQA. However, they are considered by decision-makers. If your comments address potential economic impacts, send a copy of your concerns to the Planning Commissioners and Supervisors, the project planner, and the Planning Director.

3. Explain the basis for your comments and recommendations (facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts) and, whenever possible, submit specific data and/or references supporting your conclusions.

4. Make sure comments are submitted before the deadline. Comments postmarked after the close of the public review period may not be accepted or acted on. If necessary, fax your comments on or before the close of the review period and follow up by regular mail. Comments must be submitted in writing and must include your name and a valid address. Comments may also be sent by email, but must include your name and physical address; email addresses alone are not sufficient.

5. Reviewing agencies or organizations should include the name of a contact person, who would be available for questions or consultation, along with their comments.

6. The comments and recommendations by the Planning Department in its Staff Report on the project also carry a great deal of weight and can address issues that are not included in the CEQA document. Because this is prepared after the closing date for the CEQA document, it is important to review it as well, prior to the hearing before the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Comments on the Staff Report should be sent directly to the Commissioners or Supervisors before the hearing or presented in person at the hearing, with a copy to the planner in charge of the project and the Director of the Planning Department. Send your comments as early as possible, so they have time to consider your concerns.

REMEMBER A CEQA document does NOT approve or deny a project. It only provides the approving authority (Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors) with the information to make that decision. A suit brought under CEQA will only require a re evaluation of the project. It will not stop it. It is then the responsibility of the Commission or Supervisors to approve it with adequate conditions to protect our community or deny it outright. Your input will help them make an informed decision.

Sheephouse Creek NTMP Near Jenner Refiled

To the Friends of Sheephouse Creek: I just talked with Wendy Snyder and the revised Ricioli NTMP is being considered as received today and will be logged in by CDF staff. First review meeting will be December 18 and the filing date is also December 18. The PHI could be between December 19-28 if mutually agreeable by the various agencies. If the PHI is scheduled for December 19, there will be a 45 day public comment period after this date. The close of comment will then be Feb 02, 2009

Thank you, Mike