Archive for the 'Pesticide pollution' Category

Letter Exposing the Myth of “Feeding the Nation” Ag Article

Published on January 19, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Pesticide pollution and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
Thanks to whoever sent out the article on the myth being created by agribusiness, media, and politicians to the effect that supplying water to Westlands Water District is important for feeding the nation.  (Was it Brock?)
Sen. Feinstein needs to receive a lot of letters protesting her position on Westlands, and western water subsidies in general.
Jane
Letter emailed to Sen. Dianne Feinstein Jan. 9, 2010
Dear Senator Feinstein,
US Department of Agriculture statistics demonstrate that agricultural production from the Westlands Water District is far from significant, and may actually be negative when the level of taxpayer subsidies to those farmers is added in (that is, subtracted from their net profits). Based on USDA statistics, Westlands’ contribution in gross income to the nation’s food supply (and exports) is about a quarter of a percent. The true net value may be only $30 million to $40 million, once government subsides are considered.
I therefore challenge you to stop supporting the false claim that west side San Joaquin Valley agribusiness “feed the nation,” and that cuts to their water supplies prevent those growers from “feeding the nation.”
We, the U.S. taxpayers, paid for the projects that supply Westlands farmers with water, and for the drains that made it possible for them to continue farming in an area that traps irrigation water in the soils. Those drains created the poisonous slough of Kesterson Reservoir, and taxpayers eventually had to pay to fill in Kesterson’s collection ponds to stop the deformed bird chicks and outright kills of wildlife from the concentration of selenium in the drain water.
Recent tests of alternative drainwater disposal projects have shown that all have the same potential to poison and kill wildlife as did Kesterson. Thus, there should NEVER be a time when Westlands drain waters reach the San Joaquin River!!
It’s time to get real about the level of taxpayer subsidies that allow Westlands agribusiness to survive, when they also create environmental havoc that taxpayers then have to pay to remediate. Why should taxpayers continue supporting agriculture that has to be bailed out of its self-made problems? It’s time to wean Westlands farmers off the public purse, and make them prove that they can prosper in a free market.
More realistically, Westlands demands for taxpayer support — and the environmental destruction — both come from irrigating the land. It’s time to cut out the irrigation. Take Westlands Water District lands out of production!
Jane E. Nielson jenielson@comcast.net
–
Jane E. Nielson, Ph.D. Geologist

Use of potentially harmful chemicals kept secret under law

Published on January 12, 2010 in Pesticide pollution. 0 Comments

By Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post , January 4, 2010

Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States — from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners — nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.

The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry. But critics — including the Obama administration — say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.

At a time of increasing public demand for more information about chemical exposure, pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy. Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation. Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line.

Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.

Some companies have successfully argued that the federal government should not only keep the names of their chemicals secret but also hide from public view the identities and addresses of the manufacturers.

“Even acknowledging what chemical is used or what is made at what facility could convey important information to competitors, and they can start to put the pieces together,” said Mike Walls, vice president of the American Chemistry Council.

Although a number of the roughly 17,000 secret chemicals may be harmless, manufacturers have reported in mandatory notices to the government that many pose a “substantial risk” to public health or the environment. In March, for example, more than half of the 65 “substantial risk” reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency involved secret chemicals.

“You have thousands of chemicals that potentially present risks to health and the environment,” said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that documented the extent of the secret chemicals through public-records requests from the EPA. “It’s impossible to run an effective regulatory program when so many of these chemicals are secret.” Of the secret chemicals, 151 are made in quantities of more than 1 million tons a year and 10 are used specifically in children’s products, according to the EPA.

The identities of the chemicals are known to a handful of EPA employees who are legally barred from sharing that information with other federal officials, state health and environmental regulators, foreign governments, emergency responders and the public.

Last year, a Colorado nurse fell seriously ill after treating a worker involved at a chemical spill at a gas-drilling site. The man, who later recovered, appeared at a Durango hospital complaining of dizziness and nausea. His work boots were damp; he reeked of chemicals, the nurse said.

Two days later, the nurse, Cathy Behr, was fighting for her life. Her liver was failing and her lungs were filling with fluid. Behr said her doctors diagnosed chemical poisoning and called the manufacturer, Weatherford International, to find out what she might have been exposed to. Weatherford provided safety information, including hazards, for the chemical, known as ZetaFlow. But because ZetaFlow has confidential status, the information did not include all of its ingredients. Mark Stanley, group vice president for Weatherford’s pumping and chemical services, said in a statement that the company made public all the information legally required.

“It is always in our company’s best interest to provide information to the best of our ability,” he said. Behr said the full ingredient list should be released. “I’d really like to know what went wrong,” said Behr, 57, who recovered but said she still has respiratory problems. “As citizens in a democracy, we ought to know what’s happening around us.”

The White House and environmental groups want Congress to force manufacturers to prove that a substance should be kept confidential. They also want federal officials to be able to share confidential information with state regulators and health officials, who carry out much of the EPA’s work across the country.

Walls, of the American Chemistry Council, says manufacturers agree that federal officials should be able to share information with state regulators. Industry is also willing to discuss shifting the burden of proof for secrecy claims to the chemical makers, he said. The EPA must allow a claim unless it can prove within 90 days that disclosure would not harm business.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to reduce secrecy. A week after he arrived at the agency in July, Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, ended confidentiality protection for 530 chemicals. In those cases, manufacturers had claimed secrecy for chemicals they had promoted by name on their Web sites or detailed in trade journals.

“People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it,” Owens said.

The handful of EPA officials privy to the identity of the chemicals do not have other information that could help them assess the risk, said Lynn Goldman, a former EPA official and a pediatrician and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“Maybe they don’t know there’s been a water quality problem in New Jersey where the plant is located, or that the workers in the plant have had health problems,” she said. “It just makes sense that the more people who are looking at it, they’re better able to put one and one together and recognize problems.”

Independent researchers, who often provide data to policymakers and regulators, also have been unable to study the secret chemicals. Duke University chemist Heather Stapleton, who researches flame retardants, tried for months to identify a substance she had found in dust samples taken from homes in Boston. Then, while attending a scientific conference, she happened to see the structure of a chemical she recognized as her mystery compound.

The substance is a chemical in “Firemaster 550,” a product made by Chemtura Corp. for use in furniture and other products as a substitute for a flame retardant the company had quit making in 2004 because of health concerns. Stapleton found that Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient similar in structure to a chemical — Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP — that Congress banned last year from children’s products because it has been linked to reproductive problems and other health effects. Chemtura, which claimed confidentiality for Firemaster 550, supplied the EPA with standard toxicity studies. The EPA has asked for additional data, which it is studying.

“My concern is we’re using chemicals and we have no idea what the long-term effects might be or whether or not they’re harmful,” said Susan Klosterhaus, an environmental scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute who has published a journal article on the substance with Stapleton. Chemtura officials said in a written statement that even though Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient structurally similar to DEHP does not mean it poses similar health risks.

They said the company strongly supports keeping sensitive business information out of public view. “This is essential for ensuring the long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry,” the officials said in the statement.

Even at Sublethal Levels, Pesticides may slow the Recovery of Wild Salmon Populations

Published on January 12, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Pesticide pollution and Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts. 0 Comments

Exposure to common pesticides may hinder the growth and survival of ESA-listed salmon

Sockeye Salmon Race

Biologists determined that short-term, seasonal exposure to pesticides in rivers and basins may limit the growth and size of wild salmon populations. In addition to the widespread deterioration of salmon habitats, these findings suggest that exposure to commonly used pesticides may further inhibit the recovery of threatened or endangered populations.

“Major efforts are currently underway to restore Pacific salmon habitats in an effort to recover depressed populations,” says David Baldwin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who co-authored the study with NOAA colleagues in the December issue of the ESA journal Ecological Applications. “However, not much research has been done to determine the importance of pollution as a limiting factor of ESA-listed species.”

The researchers studied the impact of pesticides, such as diazinon and malathion, on individual salmon using pre-existing data, and then devised a model to calculate the productivity and growth rate of the population. They used several exposure scenarios to reflect realistic pesticide use across various landscapes and over time.

Pesticides include insecticides, herbicides and fungicides that are usually applied to agricultural and urban landscapes. They primarily enter waterways in spray drift, surface runoff and irrigation return flows.

“An important aim of the work was to link known sublethal effects for individual salmon to impacts on the productivity of salmon populations,” explains Baldwin.

The biologists found in previous studies that, on an individual level, the pesticides directly affected the activity of acetylcholinesterase, an important enzyme in the salmon brain. As a result, the salmon experienced reductions in feeding behavior. The reductions in food were then extended using the model to calculate reductions in the growth, size, and subsequent survival at ocean migration. In one scenario, the model predicted that, within a span of 20 years, returning spawners would have an increase of 68 percent abundance compared to a 523 percent projected increase in an unexposed chinook population.

“The model showed that a pesticide exposure lasting only four days can change the freshwater growth and, by extension, the subsequent survival of subyearling animals,” says Baldwin. “In addition, the seasonal transport of pesticides to salmon habitats over successive years might slow the recovery of depressed populations.”

The researchers argue that improving water quality conditions by reducing common pollutants could potentially increase the rate of recovery. Looking to the bigger picture, “This should help resource managers consider pesticides at the same biological scale as physical and biological stressors when prioritizing habitat restoration activities,” says Baldwin.

The Ecological Society of America is the world’s largest professional organization of ecologists, representing 10,000 scientists in the United States and around the globe. For more information about the Society and its activities, visit the ESA website at www.esa.org.

Scott River Salmon Survey Produces Infection and Dead Fish

Published on October 30, 2009 in Environmental Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

To All,

California Department of Fish and Game did a Reconnaissance Survey on the Scott River, September 28, and found many Chinook Salmon infected or dead. Click on the pdf document for photos and more information.

–Larry

Scott River Sept 28 2009 Recon Survey

New Winery and Vineyard Permits

Published on October 19, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Groundwater, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

To All,

Looking through the permit applications at PRMD since last June, here are new winery/vineyard permits. Will these all sail through the PRMD process (BZA, Planning Commission, BOS) without real consideration of water (drought, future water needs, conservation, etc.), wine glut, economical diversity, wildlife areas and wildlife corridors, intrusions upon the impacts and character of rural residential, traffic congestion and taxpayer costs, and others? If real PLANNING were taking place, would not some projects be okayed and some projects be denied due to its inappropriateness for the site and/or inappropriate for the county (mitigating ≠ planning). Here they are:

Looking through the permit applications at PRMD since last June, here are new winery/vineyard permits. Will these all sail through the PRMD process (BZA, Planning Commission, BOS) without real consideration of water (drought, future water needs, conservation, etc.), wine glut, economical diversity, wildlife areas and wildlife corridors, intrusions upon the impacts and character of rural residential, traffic congestion and taxpayer costs, and others? If real PLANNING were taking place, would not some projects be okayed and some projects be denied due to its inappropriateness for the site and/or inappropriate for the county (mitigating ≠ planning). Here they are:

Best Family Investors
New winery production facility, 33,000 cases
Zoning changes
Before BOS on Oct. 20, 2pm

779 Westside Rd, Healdsburg
110-010-036 Michael Kuimelis
20,000 cases, 11,000 sq ft production bldg, 18 events/yr, 12 acre
vineyard, new well

7412 Dry Creek Rd GEY
139-160-056 Hugh Seaton
5,300 sq ft winery, 10,000 cases, 24 events/yr, new well

8400 Graton Rd, Graton
130-500-009 Dutton Ranch Corp
Two new wineries in existing comm. bldgs, each 5,000 cases, new well

9020 Eastside Rd, Windsor
066-290-041 Valdez Family
Winery for 50,000 cases, 6 events/yr

2475 Fremont Dr, Sonoma
135-012-001 Vina Management Services
New winery with 40,000 cases and 1,100 gal micro brewery, 18 events/
yr, new well

10520 Wohler Rd, Forestville
083-010-027 Billy Derbes
New winery with 8,500 cases, 8 events/yr

5580 Alpine Rd, Rincon Valley
028-100-008, Moon Star Winery
New winery in existing bldgs with 800 cases
New well.

3000 Sears Pt Rd, Sonoma
068-160-021, Jean Kapolchok & Assoc 5-29
New winery with 32,000 cases, 150 events/yr, Wells permitted

16763 La Nelligan Rd, Glen Ellen
053-030-031 Gerald Baldwin
New winery in existing barn, 1,875 cases, no events (but often applied
for later).

–Larry

Water Board Meeting on Stormwater Discharge Permits for SR and SCWA

Published on September 29, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

Hi everyone!

On October 1st, sometime after 8:30 (probably 9 AM) the North Coast Regional Board will consider final approval of the MS4 Storm Water and Non-Storm Water Discharge Permit for SCWA and Santa Rosa at their office at 5550 Skylane Blvd.

In general, this is a good permit in terms of addressing storm water runoff issues.  (toxic runoff occurring during early rain storms in the late fall) What I am deeply concerned about however, is the cavalier treatment of “incidental runoff” which will carry out the recent approval of the Basin Plan Amendment to legalize summer irrigation runoff when streams are most vulnerable.

Board staff have been giving me the run around on this issue for a long time now.  They have not adequately addressed my concerns about environmental impacts resulting from this practice (they claim all runoff will be infrequent and inconsequential) and they are giving me the run around about limiting my ability to submit new information and constraining my ability to address the Board by limiting my comments to 3 minutes (something they have not done in a very long time).  I also don’t think they will allow me to submit recent pictures of irrigation overflow to Board Members.

Let me tell you the key issue, but first:

Santa Rosa gives Rohnert Park treated wastewater to use for irrigation. There is a reclamation permit constraining the use of that wastewater. There have been very few violations reported and those were always reported by outside observers.  The Cities are allowed to do their own monitoring and of course almost never find anything wrong.

I have known for a long time that Rohnert Park irrigates excessively.  This August, Dawna Gallagher and I went out at different times, early in the morning (I got there at 7 AM) and took many pictures of irrigation water running off into the drains.  Because most of the sites irrigate before dawn, I could not get all the pictures I wanted.  At 7 AM there were many damp pavements where it was apparent that water had run off earlier. I did not take pictures of those.  Nevertheless, we got almost 100 pictures of irrigation water going into the streets and into drains, some of which we will submit to the Board, but it is likely that they won’t admit them into the record or allow Board members to see them until the item is resolved They have done this to me many times.  They hold on to things I want distributed at the meeting until the item is over.

Santa Rosa has a reclamation permit that makes them ultimately responsible for RP’s irrigation runoff.  I am most concerned because I believe that the severe nutrient pollution in the Laguna and tribs and the resulting massive Ludwigia growth is at least partially a result of this over watering. (Take a look at the Bellevue-Wilfred Channel on the Stony Point Bridge just south of Rohnert Park Expressway sometime

The Reclamation Permit states, among numerous other things, “Recycled water shall be applied in such a manner so as not to exceed vegetative demand or field capacity.”  We have pictures of water running into pavements and into drainages.  Almost every site where we saw sprinklers going, there was runoff.  Some of the sites were over irrigating with water and not wastewater, even though RP claims great conservation savings.

Worst of all, there was a large amount of over irrigation with wastewater ON RP’s OWN CITY PROPERTIES.

The Laguna is severely impaired and is due to soon be studied in order to determine waste load allocations of nutrients.  This is no time to be pushing a summer wastewater irrigation program until that study is complete.

The State has approved a Water Recycling Policy and are heavily promoting the use of wastewater for irrigation in order to save potable water.  This sounds like a notable goal, but in the case of Santa Rosa, an urban irrigation program WILL NOT SAVE ANY WATER.  They will just stop some of the irrigation and reclamation they are doing now and transfer it to the urban area.  Furthermore, given SCWA’s recent change in direction regarding additional water supplies, there is likely to not be as much wastewater produced, and most of that is under contract to go to the Geysers and be reclaimed there.  So the goals of the State’s Water Recycling Policy are already being realized in our area (to the City’s credit) and the urban irrigation program with wastewater IS UNNECESSARY.  (as more and more lawns get replaced, such an irrigation program can turn out to be a huge waste of money

At any rate, the MS4 permit fails to specifically numerically define “incidental runoff” or non-storm water runoff as they call it now.  They merely define it as runoff that is infrequent, low volume, accidental, etc. The problem is that they are not at all clear in how that will be assured. The Regional Board will rely on BMPs and self monitoring for regulatory compliance.  This in light of a severely impaired water body that would receive the runoff.  The Regional Board WOULD CONDUCT NO OVERSIGHT OTHER THAN READ ANNUAL REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA.

Santa Rosa developed a Water Recycling Manual for their planned urban irrigation project (ultimately to cost as much as $150 million) The plan is to have third party contractors who will oversee new city irrigation sites. One of their requirements is to check the system EVERY WEEK OR TWO!!!!  So tell me, how much wastewater can be released from a broken sprinkler head in two weeks?

This irrigation program would be almost impossible to enforce.  (During this summer SR had “water cops” going around checking for over irrigation with potable water and found 40 incidences a week of people over watering. Now if that were wastewater, think of all the pollution!!)  They would need frequent checks (hourly?) to assure that “incidental runoff” is truly incidental.  OTHERWISE, IT IS SIMPLY LEGALIZING SUMMER WASTEWATER DISCHARGES!!

So now Santa Rosa will have this permission to allow incidental runoff. When it happens, it will get into the creeks and streams at a time when flow is low and they can be heavily impacted by nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, soil amendments, and all the unregulated stuff in the wastewater itself!  People who recreate in the river may have to now further worry about antibiotic resistant super bugs, now found to be proliferating in water treated with UV disinfection (as SR’s system is).

THIS IS POTENTIALLY A HUGE PROBLEM AND THE REGIONAL BOARD IS JUST GIVING ME THE COLD SHOULDER AND PUSHING IT THROUGH.  I NEED YOUR HELP.  PLEASE SEND EMAILS TO CAT KUHLMAN PROTESTING THIS.  USE ANY OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS LETTER AND PLEASE COME TO THE MEETING NEXT THURSDAY TO PROTEST.  PLEASE ASK REGIONAL BOARD NOT TO ALLOW THIS RUNOFF UNTIL A NUTRIENT TMDL IS DEVELOPED FOR THE LAGUNA.

Brenda

i everyone!
On October 1st, sometime after 8:30 (probably 9 AM) the North Coast Regional Board will consider final approval of the MS4 Storm Water and Non-Storm Water Discharge Permit for SCWA and Santa Rosa at their office at 5550 Skylane Blvd.
In general, this is a good permit in terms of addressing storm water runoff issues.  (toxic runoff occurring during early rain storms in the late fall) What I am deeply concerned about however, is the cavalier treatment of “incidental runoff” which will carry out the recent approval of the Basin Plan Amendment to legalize summer irrigation runoff when streams are most vulnerable.
Board staff have been giving me the run around on this issue for a long time now.  They have not adequately addressed my concerns about environmental impacts resulting from this practice (they claim all runoff will be infrequent and inconsequential) and they are giving me the run around about limiting my ability to submit new information and constraining my ability to address the Board by limiting my comments to 3 minutes (something they have not done in a very long time).  I also don’t think they will allow me to submit recent pictures of irrigation overflow to Board Members.
Let me tell you the key issue, but first:
Santa Rosa gives Rohnert Park treated wastewater to use for irrigation. There is a reclamation permit constraining the use of that wastewater. There have been very few violations reported and those were always reported by outside observers.  The Cities are allowed to do their own monitoring and of course almost never find anything wrong.
I have known for a long time that Rohnert Park irrigates excessively.  This August, Dawna Gallagher and I went out at different times, early in the morning (I got there at 7 AM) and took many pictures of irrigation water running off into the drains.  Because most of the sites irrigate before dawn, I could not get all the pictures I wanted.  At 7 AM there were many damp pavements where it was apparent that water had run off earlier. I did not take pictures of those.  Nevertheless, we got almost 100 pictures of irrigation water going into the streets and into drains, some of which we will submit to the Board, but it is likely that they won’t admit them into the record or allow Board members to see them until the item is resolved They have done this to me many times.  They hold on to things I want distributed at the meeting until the item is over.
Santa Rosa has a reclamation permit that makes them ultimately responsible for RP’s irrigation runoff.  I am most concerned because I believe that the severe nutrient pollution in the Laguna and tribs and the resulting massive Ludwigia growth is at least partially a result of this over watering. (Take a look at the Bellevue-Wilfred Channel on the Stony Point Bridge just south of Rohnert Park Expressway sometime
The Reclamation Permit states, among numerous other things, “Recycled water shall be applied in such a manner so as not to exceed vegetative demand or field capacity.”  We have pictures of water running into pavements and into drainages.  Almost every site where we saw sprinklers going, there was runoff.  Some of the sites were over irrigating with water and not wastewater, even though RP claims great conservation savings.
Worst of all, there was a large amount of over irrigation with wastewater ON RP’s OWN CITY PROPERTIES.
The Laguna is severely impaired and is due to soon be studied in order to determine waste load allocations of nutrients.  This is no time to be pushing a summer wastewater irrigation program until that study is complete.
The State has approved a Water Recycling Policy and are heavily promoting the use of wastewater for irrigation in order to save potable water.  This sounds like a notable goal, but in the case of Santa Rosa, an urban irrigation program WILL NOT SAVE ANY WATER.  They will just stop some of the irrigation and reclamation they are doing now and transfer it to the urban area.  Furthermore, given SCWA’s recent change in direction regarding additional water supplies, there is likely to not be as much wastewater produced, and most of that is under contract to go to the Geysers and be reclaimed there.  So the goals of the State’s Water Recycling Policy are already being realized in our area (to the City’s credit) and the urban irrigation program with wastewater IS UNNECESSARY.  (as more and more lawns get replaced, such an irrigation program can turn out to be a huge waste of money
At any rate, the MS4 permit fails to specifically numerically define “incidental runoff” or non-storm water runoff as they call it now.  They merely define it as runoff that is infrequent, low volume, accidental, etc. The problem is that they are not at all clear in how that will be assured. The Regional Board will rely on BMPs and self monitoring for regulatory compliance.  This in light of a severely impaired water body that would receive the runoff.  The Regional Board WOULD CONDUCT NO OVERSIGHT OTHER THAN READ ANNUAL REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA.
Santa Rosa developed a Water Recycling Manual for their planned urban irrigation project (ultimately to cost as much as $150 million) The plan is to have third party contractors who will oversee new city irrigation sites. One of their requirements is to check the system EVERY WEEK OR TWO!!!!  So tell me, how much wastewater can be released from a broken sprinkler head in two weeks?
This irrigation program would be almost impossible to enforce.  (During this summer SR had “water cops” going around checking for over irrigation with potable water and found 40 incidences a week of people over watering. Now if that were wastewater, think of all the pollution!!)  They would need frequent checks (hourly?) to assure that “incidental runoff” is truly incidental.  OTHERWISE, IT IS SIMPLY LEGALIZING SUMMER WASTEWATER DISCHARGES!!
So now Santa Rosa will have this permission to allow incidental runoff. When it happens, it will get into the creeks and streams at a time when flow is low and they can be heavily impacted by nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, soil amendments, and all the unregulated stuff in the wastewater itself!  People who recreate in the river may have to now further worry about antibiotic resistant super bugs, now found to be proliferating in water treated with UV disinfection (as SR’s system is).
THIS IS POTENTIALLY A HUGE PROBLEM AND THE REGIONAL BOARD IS JUST GIVING ME THE COLD SHOULDER AND PUSHING IT THROUGH.  I NEED YOUR HELP.  PLEASE SEND EMAILS TO CAT KUHLMAN PROTESTING THIS.  USE ANY OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS LETTER AND PLEASE COME TO THE MEETING NEXT THURSDAY TO PROTEST.  PLEASE ASK REGIONAL BOARD NOT TO ALLOW THIS RUNOFF UNTIL A NUTRIENT TMDL IS DEVELOPED FOR THE LAGUNA.
Brenda

EPA INCREASES RESTRICTIONS ON 3 PESTICIDES HARMFUL TO SALMON

Published on September 17, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

To All,

On 11 September 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will be placing additional limitations on three types of organophosphate pesticides in order to protect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmon and steelhead in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.  The pesticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are know to impair the olfactory senses of salmon and steelhead.  The fish’s ability to smell is very important in finding food, mating, and locating natal spawning grounds.  

The EPA will require buffer zones and application limits based on weather conditions, wind speed and soil moisture.  Fish deaths will be recorded and reported to the EPA in order to monitor the effectiveness of new pesticide regulations.  It is also EPA’s plan to initiate a separate monitoring study to measure the effectiveness of the new regulations.  Dow Chemical Company, Cheminova, and Makhteshim Agan of North America are the primary manufacturers of these pesticides and will be the targeted financiers of the monitoring program.  Pesticide manufacturers will be asked to begin labeling their products with the new restrictions voluntarily.  However, the EPA will take legal action against the companies if the companies do not comply. 

For a 11 September 2009 press release from the EPA, go to http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/cd1f6f9dbe3db7d68525762e004f693a?OpenDocument.

For a 11 September 2009 article from the Oregonian see  www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/epa_further_limits_three_pesti.html<http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/epa_further_limits_three_pesti.html

Comments on the Klamath TMDL

Published on September 7, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

August 21, 2009

Matt St. John                                                                        
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board                                  
5550 Skyline Blvd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA  95403
Email to: MStJohn@waterboards.ca.gov

Subject: Comments on the Klamath Mainstem TMDL Water Quality Restoration Plan

General Comments
We are  pleased with and fully supportive of Staff’s efforts in these Draft Water Quality Restoration Plan (“Implementation Plan”) provisions as well as in the supporting Technical TMDL portions of the Draft TMDL generally as set forth in the earlier chapters.  The necessary condition of success is dependent on a strong, comprehensive and fully enforceable Implementation Plan as well as progress in  pollution control on Klamath River tributaries..

The policy foundation upon which these implementation measures are constructed, as well as the Technical TMDL portions of the prior chapters, are both scientifically sound and well constructed.  We also believe the proposed zero load allocations are completely justified given the already highly degraded water quality conditions of the Klamath River today.

Pollutant Sources and Controls

Private forest lands contribute a good deal of sediment to the Klamath River, particularly from the vast network of poorly maintained and legacy logging roads on private lands.  Principle parties are the US Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.  

The California Board of Forestry has adopted some construction standards for private lands logging roads, but these standards are frequently not enforced except on a complaint-driven basis.  Compliance with maintenance standards on private logging roads is also very lax, and largely voluntary.  The adequacy of those logging road rules to prevent inflows of sediments and increased frequency of landslides is questionable.  We are also not aware of any systematic effort to inventory private land logging roads within the Klamath basin, and it is likely that no such private logging road inventory and data base currently exists or will exist.


There are several other water quality programs, or programs with water quality implications, in the Klamath Basin already – including the Scott and Shasta river TMDLs and Implementation Plans.


The Klamath TMDL Implementation Strategy should be consistent with:

ESA Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon: Klamath Basin coho salmon have been State listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) since August 30, 2002.  On February, 2004, the Fish and Game Commission formally adopted a Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon which is now being implemented, and which contains hundreds of measures and goals for coho salmon recovery, many with water quality standards implications

Federal ESA Coho Recovery Plans: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will shortly be releasing a draft coho recovery plan for the SONCC ESU which Klamath coho salmon are a part of.  The measures that will ultimately be contained in this federal recovery plan may also have water quality standard implications, and an adopted state TMDL should be consistent with those standards as well as contribute toward coho recovery under that federal plan.

Basin Plan for the North Cost: Including Basin Plan Amendments (Scott River TMDL and Implementation Plan, Shasta River TMDL and Implementation Plan, Basin Plan Anti-degradation language, and any Basin Plan Amendments for stream, wetland, and sediment protections (with prohibitions). 

California Water Code: The Klamath TMDL and Implementation Plan (including Implementing Programs)  must conform to the mandates of California Water Code (as a Basin Plan Amendment/Water Quality Control Plan) and meet the conditions set forth in the Code (including Section 13242 of the Code). 

California Environmental Quality Act: Description of conditions of the Klamath Basin (as environment setting – including tributaries), causal relationships, problem statement, assessment, and remedy (mitigtion/implementation planning) as part of the TMDL process must conform to CEQA mandates. 

Waste Discharge Reporting – Conditional Waivers (for Timber Harvest and Agricultural Land Use)

A review of the Scott and Shasta River TMDLs and Implementation Plan indicates reliance on the use of WDRs and Conditional Waivers for pollution control planning, standards, and actions.  For Timber Harvest and Agricultural land use effects the Implementation Plans of these TMDLs (inclusive of the Klamath River, and tributaries the Scott and Shasta Rivers) is dependent on the language and controls inherent in these WDRs and related Conditional Waivers.  CEQA review and Water Code compliance was dependent on the language these WDRs and related Conditional Waivers.  With the understanding that the Scott and Shasta Rivers are tributaries of the Klamath River and conditions on these tributaries effect the function and impaired condition of the Klamath system in general, it must be assumed that changes to the Implementation Plan (by changing WDR and Conditional Waiver conditions) would have pervasive effects on the whole system. Thus, any changes to the WDRs and/or Conditional Waivers that would weaken the Implementation Planning and/or Timber Harvest and Agricultural land use standards and controls would compromise the TMDL implementation standards that had been relied up to attain Water Quality Standards over time and thus would not be in conformance with Cal Water Code and CEQA.  Such changes would require re-visitation to these respective TMDL Implementation Plans. 

Note: WDR and Conditional Waiver language as mitigation (under CEQA review and in conformance with Cal Water Code)  was a condition of adoption of the Scott and Shasta TMDLs and Implementation Plan as amended into the Basin Plan.  These conditions are considered binding and enforceable. If such WDR or Waiver conditions are ignored or violated, then such a conditions can be legally compelled to be obeyed.  To change the conditions of an approved Implementation Plan (WDR or Waiver) would necessitate that it be amended according to the same process by which it was approved. In this case such changes would require substantiation that any such changes must be equal to or better that the previously applied conditions. 

Implementation language as mitigation is compelled by substantial evidence in the record.  The only way that the State Water Board or Regional Board can legally allow the mitigation to be removed or changed is if it determines that the substantial evidence that prompted the mitigation has somehow disappeared. If a particular mitigation is necessary to control the adverse impacts of a project over a certain period of time and if it is feasible, its implementation is legally mandated.

Any diminished capability in the Regional Board administration of these WDRs and Conditional Waivers (possibly by State Wide WDRs and Waivers as proposed by the State Board) would necessarily effect the potential  effectiveness of any TMDL that relies on these WDRs and Waivers for pollutant control.  Thus the Implementation policy effectiveness of these TMDLs would, and should, be called into question.  Loss of WDR and Waiver utility should bring the approved Scott and Shasta TMDL Implementation language into question. In addition, the Scott and Shasta are Klamath problems.  

Final Report on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of The Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks (Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel); and (2) Phase II Report: Independent Scientific Review Panel on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of the Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks (Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel) – and – other studies and scientific review planels document and contain substantial evidence that CDF’s Rules and best management practices fail to protect water quality from the adverse effects of logging.  These documents should be referenced in review and discussion of Implementation Planning (Implementing Programs – inclusive of WDRs and Conditional Waivers).

Stream Flow Maintenance

The State Water Board has not included all of the north coast streams (suffering from diminished flows – from over and inappropriate use, unlicensed use, and changing weather patterns) in their policy considerations for flow maintenance (and beneficial use protection). Low flow conditions exacerbate temperature and other pollutant issues.  Documented in the Klamath River, and Scott and Shasta River TMDLs and Implementation Plan are pollutant effects related to diminished stream flows. The State Water Board should (under State Water Code and other regulatory authority ) take action to protect beneficial uses by imposing standards and regulations to limit wasteful and illegal diversion. These actions are to include minimum flow targets to protect fishery resources and other beneficial uses, stream flow gauges, Water Master, Water Budgets, and gauges on pumps so that use may be documented. All information should and policy process should be open and transparent and available for use by responsible agency and the public. (note: this issue is what is being discussed on the Russian River and other streams in northern California suffering from similar conditions ). 

This issue must be addressed (in reference to conditions in the Klamath River and tributaries) in the Klamath River TMDL and Implementation Plan. 

Suction Dredging 

Suction dredging changes channel conformity and brings up and redistributes sediment (and possibly pollution contaminates).  Such activity is subject to DFG 1600 permitting and should be subject to WDRs and NPDES permitting processes (NPDES due to the fact that this is a point source input of pollutants).   Suction dredging activity must be in conformance with the Basin Plan (including Basin Plan Anti-degradation language). 

Model Boundary

The Klamath River TMDL and Implantation plan is complicated by many factors, including inputs from tributaries and areas of the Klamath River outside the State of California. The State of California (and Region IX EPA) should insist that waters delivered to the boarder of the State of California from Oregon should meet Water Quality Standards.  This requires cooperation and actions from the State of Oregon and regional management by the EPA. 

Mile Stones

Section 13242 of California Water Code require time lines for implementation of actions as part of a Water Quality Control Plan. The Klamath River TMDL and Action plan projects actions to be accomplished at some future date. Compliance for such an implementation schedule should be tracked and mandated – with additional actions to take place if the schedule is not met.  There should be mile stones (or targets) for measurement of trends and efficacy of Implementing Programs – with additional described actions if such miles stones (or targets) are not attained.  Performance and movement towards attainment standards are mandated under this section of the Cal Water Code and by CEQA.  The document should clearly demonstrate how all of this is to be accomplished – with described alternative actions if mile stones or targets are not attained. 


 Sincerely, 

 Alan Levine for Coast Action Group 



Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215 
Point Arena, CA 95468

Phone: Week Days 707 542-4408
Weekends  707 882-2484

Environmental Impacts from Vineyards

Published on August 11, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
I have watched the changes in agriculture from apples and timber to grapes over the years. I have also watched the increase in local flash flooding events in Atascadero Creek and other areas in the county. Vineyards are the obvious culprit responsible for the flash flooding, hot dry creek beds, and the loss of endangered species. Unfortunately wine is the bulwark of out economy and so its culpability will be myopically overlooked and the obviously malevolent mismanagement practices taking place in vineyards will continue. Instead of controlling and regulating these impacts on water and endangered species, the agencies charged with environmental protection appear to be focusing on the sport fishermen and tourists who might be witnesses to the demise while they study the extinction process as it unfolds. With what we all know, how could anyone charged with protecting endangered species consider allowing something like Preservation Ranch to go forward or for that matter any timber conversion to grapes or gravel extraction. The fish seem to be suffering the same plight as the Russian River Watershed Council.

I have watched the changes in agriculture from apples and timber to grapes over the years. I have also watched the increase in local flash flooding events in Atascadero Creek and other areas in the county. Vineyards are the obvious culprit responsible for the flash flooding, hot dry creek beds, and the loss of endangered species. Unfortunately wine is the bulwark of out economy and so its culpability will be myopically overlooked and the obviously malevolent mismanagement practices taking place in vineyards will continue. Instead of controlling and regulating these impacts on water and endangered species, the agencies charged with environmental protection appear to be focusing on the sport fishermen and tourists who might be witnesses to the demise while they study the extinction process as it unfolds. With what we all know, how could anyone charged with protecting endangered species consider allowing something like Preservation Ranch to go forward or for that matter any timber conversion to grapes or gravel extraction. The fish seem to be suffering the same plight as the Russian River

Bob Rawson

Watershed Impacts Due to Vineyards

Published on August 10, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Groundwater, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

To All,

Is there a unified policy on the flows and frost protection issue?  NO.

I have almost one mile of MWC (Mark West Creek) running through my property where I have lived for over 40 years and am in the timber business.   About 5 or  6 years ago, I noticed a significant loss of summertime flows even after exceptionally wet winters.

Working with neighbors and many others, it became apparent this was happening at an incredible rate not only to our watershed but throughout the county.  In our particular watershed, there has been very few homes built recently but there  has been considerable vineyard development with considerable deforestation.

We have noted that:

a)  Pumping for frost protection immediately reduces creek flows significantly.

b)  Vineyard irrigation for heat protection and growth will totally dry up a Class I stream adjacent to a vineyard.

c)  Springs disappear adjacent to these vineyards.

d)  Short duration flooding is occurring even after minor storms below these vineyards.

e)  Water levels in neighboring wells drop, sometimes significantly.

f)  Of the 9 miles of Mark West Creek, approximately 3 1/2 miles existed in Sept. 2009 where CDFG records always indicated 29 miles of water in the past.

g)  2008 fish kills in Mark West Creek appear to be 100% and the list goes on.

What are we doing?

Jim