Robert. The first item is a Press Release by U.C. Berkeley titled “Steelhead Trout Lose Out When Water is Low in Wine Country”. This press release is a synopsis of the attached second item which is a detailed study by Grantham, et al. titled “The Role of Streamflow and Land Use in Limiting Oversummer Survival, etc.” showing the relationship between streamflows and salmonids.

As the press release states “Salmon & Trout populations are on the road to EXTINCTION” (emphasis added). This paper was done by Grantham, Newburn, McCarthy and Merenlender with help from Matt Dietch and Kondolf.

Of the nine survey reaches, three are on Mark West Creek. Some highlights of the paper that is significant to your investigation are:
As to groundwater pumping, “such water withdrawals has the potential to accelerate stream drying” “indicates higher water temperatures”. As vineyard development takes place, the fish decline in abundance and health; e.g. “survival was on average five times lower in reaches with the highest vineyard use compared with reaches with the lowest levels of vineyard development”

Not surprisingly, the study concludes:
“…vineyard land cover had a significant negative association with survival, while other land use variables, including road density and rural residential development, did not have a significant effect.” “The positive relationship between survival and the flow metrics indicates that stream discharge is an important mediator of steelhead rearing habitat conditions during the dry season.” “”Flows control the velocity, depth, and volume of water in the stream channel and thus directly mediate the size and suitability of habitat (Dewson et al. 2007).” “…increasing the duration or severity of low flows in the warm summer months could elevate stream temperatures above critical thermal maxima for salmonids (Myrick and Cech 2004), concentrate pollutants to toxic levels, and decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations (Nilsson and Renofalt 20088). Finally, flows can have important effects on the production and delivery of food resources for juvenile fish. For example, a reduction in invertebrate drift inputs resulting from decreasing flow is likely to adversely affect the growth, fitness, and survival of fish during the dry season (Harvey et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2008).” “The model results indicate that vineyard land cover has a negative association with juvenile steelhead survival, which could be related to the impacts that intensive agriculture has on both habitat and streamflows. The direct effects of land use conversion are consistent with previous studies that document impacts to salmonid habitat and populations from the conversion of wild lands to agricultural, managed forest, urban, and exurban uses (e.g. Paulsen and Fisher 2001; Bilby and Mollot 2008). Vineyard and exurban development in the region is associated with increased fine sediment inputs to streams (Lohse et al. 2008) and thus may be indirectly affecting salmonids through habitat degradation. Vineyards could also be indirectly affecting habitat through alterations to streamflow because they often rely on groundwater pumping or direct surface water abstraction to meet their water demands.” “…vineyard and water use could affect juvenile salmonids by dewatering streams, reducing habitat availability, and potentially stranding fish on gravel bars (Bradford 1997).” “…any reduction in summer low flows, either from natural drought or water withdrawals is likely to reduce juvenile fish survival.” “Therefore, the reduction of water diversions combined with the identification and protection of environmental flows for salmon and other freshwater biota should be a top priority for managers and conservation scientists.”

This study clearly states what has happened and continues to occur at Cornell Farms.

I am including an article in the Anderson Valley Advertisers due to the similarities between the two projects (Artesa’s Hired Gun) and all the games being played. You may wish to Google Will Parrish on his other articles he has written about Cornell and Mark West Creek. They are quite enlightening.

Mission Statement The mission of the Water Boards is to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations.

Thank you.

Jim Doerksen

The competition between farmers and fish for precious water in California is intensifying in wine country, suggests a new study by biologists at the University of California, Berkeley.

Juvenile steelhead trout, shown here in a small stream pool, are hit hard when water levels are low. (Ted Grantham photo)

The findings, published in the May issue of the journal Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, link higher death rates for threatened juvenile steelhead trout with low water levels in the summer and the amount of vineyard acreage upstream.

The researchers found that juvenile steelhead trout are particularly at risk during the dry summer season typical of California’s Mediterranean climate. Of the juvenile steelhead trout present in June, on average only 30 percent survived to the late summer. In years with higher rainfall and in watersheds with less vineyard land use, the survival of juvenile trout over the summer was significantly higher.

The researchers pointed out that summer stream flow has been inadequately addressed in salmon and trout conservation efforts. Previous studies have highlighted other limiting factors such as habitat degradation and water quality, but here researchers documented the importance of water quantity for restoring threatened populations.

“Nearly all of California’s salmon and trout populations are on the path to extinction and if we’re going to bring these fish back to healthy levels, we have to change the way we manage our water,” said lead author Theodore Grantham, a recent Ph.D. graduate from UC Berkeley’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM). “Water withdrawals for agricultural uses can reduce or eliminate the limited amount of habitat available to sustain these cold-water fish through the summer. I don’t suggest we get rid of vineyards, but we do need to focus our attention on water management strategies that reduce summer water use. I believe we can protect flows for fish and still have our glass of wine.”

Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), historically found throughout the North Pacific Ocean, are an ocean-going, or anadromous, form of rainbow trout of the salmon family. Like salmon, steelhead trout migrate from freshwater streams to the ocean before returning to their birthplace to spawn. Steelhead trout in Southern California and the upper Columbia River are endangered, and several other populations, including those in Northern California, are threatened.

Aerial view of vineyard agriculture in Sonoma County. Vineyards that divert water from streams used by juvenile salmon and steelhead trout could reduce their impacts by storing winter rainfall in small ponds such as the ones seen in this photo. (Adina Merenlender photo)

While drought conditions clearly have an impact on water levels in streams, the study authors highlighted the role played by regional agriculture. Previous studies in Sonoma County have shown that stream flow drops when pumps draw water for vineyards. In addition to using water for irrigation, Grantham noted that farmers often pump water from streams to protect vines when freezing temperatures occur in the spring. Overhead sprinklers coat vines in a layer of water that quickly freezes to create a thermal barrier, preventing damage to the vines.

“Because frost threatens all of the region’s vineyards at the same time, there can be an incredible peak demand for water during a concentrated two to three days,” said Grantham, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis. “During a bad frost year, as much water could be used in just two weeks during the spring as in an entire season for standard irrigation needs.”

One possible solution, Grantham noted, is establishing small off-stream reservoirs to store water during times of high rainfall. Vineyards would be able to draw from these water stores during low-flow periods rather than directly from streams.

The new analysis is based upon nine years of fish count data taken from nine streams in Sonoma County, allowing researchers to account for year-to-year variability in precipitation and differences in land use.

The researchers acknowledged that there are many environmental factors that influence populations of salmon and steelhead trout, including ocean conditions, fisheries and habitat degradation, so isolating which factors are causing problems, and to what extent, is extremely difficult.

Ted Grantham is shown measuring water flows at Gill Creek in Sonoma County. (Tom Veader photo)

“This is the first scientific publication on how vineyards and summer stream flows relate to fish survivorship in California’s tributary streams,” said study principal investigator Adina Merenlender, cooperative extension specialist in ESPM. “It is the closest we have to substantiating claims by resource agencies and environmental organizations that juvenile salmon are being impacted by low flows during the summer and survive better with more flow. These findings will help inform an important environmental issue in California that is disturbing to conservationists and grape growers alike.”

Other co-authors of the study are David Newburn, now an assistant professor at the University of Maryland’s Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Michael McCarthy, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s School of Botany.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation helped support this research.

The actual study is called, “The Influences of Body Size, Habitat Quality, and Competition on the Movement and Survival of Juvenile Coho Salmon during the Early Stages of Stream Recolonization.” (click link for study)

The 324-acre site for a forestland to vineyard project stretches from the grass area to the redwood/ fir stand in the background at Artesa Winery’s proposed Fairfax Estate on the outskirts of Annapolis. State forestry officials on Tuesday approved a controversial timber-to-vineyard conversion project in northwest Sonoma County, following through with a decision expected months ago.

The decision on what is considered the largest timber-to-vineyard project in state history clears the most significant regulatory hurdle facing Artesa Vineyards and Winery.

The Napa-based vintner, owned by the Spanish wine giant Grupo Codorniu, wants to turn 116 acres into chardonnay and pinot noir vineyards on 324 acres of second-growth forestland, former orchards and grazed meadows just east of Annapolis. Another 30 acres would be cleared for a reservoir, roads and a corporation yard.

The project has been on the drawing board for more than a decade and under state review since 2009.

Bill Snyder, a deputy director at Cal Fire, the state forestry and fire agency, signed off on the plans Tuesday, certifying a lengthy environmental impact report that he called a “well-written document.”

Artesa spokesman Sam Singer said company officials were pleased with the decision and were looking forward to advancing the project.

The approval came over the objections of a number of environmental groups, local Indian tribes and some neighbors, who have voiced concerns about harm to water, wildlife, archeological sites and disturbance of the rural landscape.

One Sonoma County supervisor and two state lawmakers had urged Cal Fire to hold off on a decision, calling for another round of public input on the project.

Opponents say safeguards and habitat reserves proposed by Artesa to protect biological and cultural resources are not sufficient.

And they express broader concern about the practice of clearing forest for wine grapes, pushing back at the reach of the region’s top-grossing crop into untilled parts of the county.

“The no-brainer issue is, should we be cutting down our forestlands when there are alternatives for where we put vineyards?’” said Chris Poehlmann, president of The Friends of Gualala River, one of three environmental groups considering a lawsuit over the project. The other two considering legal action are the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity.

A coalition of tribes including the Kashia Pomo of nearby Stewarts Point Rancheria are exploring their legal options, sources said.

Noise from the Artesa operation remains a concern at the neighboring Starcross Community, but an attorney for the monastic order said litigation was not currently in the works.

Discussions involving Cal Fire, Artesa, the tribes and Starcross were factors in pushing back the final decision by three months.

Singer, the Artesa spokesman, said company officials believe the project will hold up in court and that the plan “meets and or exceeds all the requirements of the state and sound environmental practices.”

The project is one of two high-profile vineyard proposals to clear remote Sonoma County foreslands drawing nationwide media attention. The other project, put forward by the state pension giant CalPERS, would be 12 times larger than Artesa,clearing up to 1,769 acres for vineyards across a total of 19,652 acres.

Unlike Artesa, CalPERS’ project, known as Preservation Ranch, is subject to county rules governing timber conversions and is working its way through a county-led review. Artesa’s original application predated the 2006 county rules, making its conversion subject only to state approval.

Artesa still needs to clear two more hurdles. The first is approval of its logging plan, a step overseen by Cal Fire officials based in Santa Rosa. The largely procedural decision is expected in the next few weeks.

Artesa also must secure a vineyard development permit from the county Agricultural Commissioner’s office. The rules governing such permits have recently been strengthened to govern projects calling for tree removal on hillsides and ridgetops.

Artesa officials have said they intend to comply with the updated rules, which are aimed to control water runoff and limit erosion.

Given the additional state and county approvals, Artesa could begin work this summer. Under the county vineyard development rules, work this year would have to be completed by October 15.

The State Water Resources Control Board will conduct a workshop concerning

UC DAVIS REPORT ON NITRATE IN GROUNDWATER

The Public Workshop will commence on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

Coastal Hearing Room – Second Floor Joe Serna, Jr. – Cal/EPA Headquarters Building 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) will hold a public workshop on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, to consider public input on the promising options outlined in the independent UC Davis Report on Nitrate in Groundwater to be released on March 13, 2012. After its release, the report will be made available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nitrate_project/index.shtml

The UC Davis Report and public input at the workshop will be used to inform the State Water Board in developing its recommendations for its Report to the Legislature, as required by SBX2 1, later in 2012.

BACKGROUND

The law (SBX2 1) amended Water Code Section 83002.5 which requires the State Water Board, in consultation with other agencies, to develop pilot projects in the Tulare Lake Basin and the Salinas Valley to study nitrate contamination, and identify remedial solutions and funding options to recover costs associated with cleanup or treatment of groundwater and to report to the Legislature within two years. It also directed the State Water Board to create an interagency task force as needed, to oversee the pilot projects and develop recommendations for the Legislature.

A quorum of State Water Board members may be present, but no action will be taken at the workshop.

INFORMATION REGARDING THE WORKSHOP

Additional information about SBX2 1 can be found at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nitrate_project/index.shtml

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to Erik Ekdahl at

eekdahl@waterboards.ca.gov

Salmon is a dietary source of dioxins.

By Marla Cone, Editor in Chief Environmental Health News
February 17, 2012

After 21 years of wrangling over health threats, uncertain science and industry pressure, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday released its assessment of dioxins defining how toxic they are. A group of about 30 toxic compounds, including the infamous chemical in Agent Orange, dioxins are byproducts of combustion emitted by waste incinerators, chemical manufacturing plants, pulp mills, smelters and other facilities. They persist in the environment and build up in the food supply and in human bodies. Most people are exposed through fish, meat and other animal products.

Studies have linked dioxins to cancer, disrupted hormones, reproductive damage such as decreased fertility, neurological effects in children and adults, immune system changes and skin disorders.

The EPA broke the risk assessment into two parts; today’s release includes only the non-cancer effects of dioxins.

When a draft was unveiled in 2010, the EPA had set the daily level of exposure considered acceptable at 0.7 picograms of dioxins per kilogram of body weight. In response, industry groups criticized the EPA for setting this so-called “reference dose” too low, saying it would alarm consumers and drive costly regulations. The level set by the World Health Organization/United Nations in 2001 is about three times higher.

The guidelines are not enforceable standards. But they are critical to guiding many actions, such as cleanup of Superfund and other hazardous waste sites, industrial emission controls and dietary guidelines for fish.

The first assessment was completed in 1985, and since then the scientific evidence linking dioxins to a variety of human health threats has grown. But at the same time, many scientific uncertainties have remained, fueling the debate over what levels of dioxins are safe. EPA launched this reassessment in 1991.

Dioxins have been called the most toxic manmade chemicals, based on animal studies that show effects at extremely low doses – in the parts per trillion. One dioxin compound, known as TCDD, was used in Agent Orange, the herbicide sprayed by the U.S. military throughout much of Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.

“We are visitors on this planet. We are here for one hundred years at the very most. During that period we must try to do something good, something useful, with our lives. If you contribute to other people’s happiness, you will find the true meaning of life.”

— H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama

Nitrate pollution is getting a lot of attention in California. Even as other states—notably Florida—enact TMDLs for nutrients, California’s Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board recently adopted new rules for agriculture, requiring ag operations to reduce nitrate and pesticide pollution.

Just before the new rules were announced, the University of California–Davis released a study showing that in some areas of the state, 96% of the nitrate contamination in groundwater is a result of fertilizer and animal waste. Five counties were included in the study, comprising about 40% of the state’s irrigated agricultural land and half its dairy herds. The agricultural industry had previously argued that it’s impossible to identify the source of the nitrate because it can come from many different sources, such as septic systems, water treatment plants, and landscape fertilizers.

As this article reports, drinking water with high levels of nitrate—as may be the case especially for residents relying on private wells—has been associated with a number of disorders, including thyroid cancer, birth defects, and “blue baby syndrome,” which reduces the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen, as well as to less serious health problems. The UC Davis study reports that as many as 260,000 people in Salinas Valley and the Tulare Lake Basin might be drinking water with high nitrate levels. However, because the current groundwater contamination likely results from nitrates that entered the soil years ago, there may be a significant time lag between the reduction of nitrates applied today and the clearing up of the groundwater pollution.

The Environmental Working Group reports that Congress is considering future funding levels for land and water conservation programs, which would provide farmers with support for the requirements of California’s new rule, such as managing erosion, pesticides, and nutrients.

Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center
March 22, 2012

Industrial facilities continue to dump millions of pounds of toxic chemicals into America’s rivers, streams, lakes and ocean waters each year—threatening both the environment and human health. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pollution from industrial facilities is responsible for threatening or fouling water quality in more than 14,000 miles of rivers and streams, more than 220,000 acres of lakes, ponds and estuaries nationwide.

The continued release of large volumes of toxic chemicals into the nation’s waterways shows that the nation needs to do more to reduce the threat posed by toxic chemicals to our environment and our health and to ensure that our waterways are fully protected against harmful pollution.

Industrial facilities dumped 226 million pounds of toxic chemicals intoAmerican waterways in 2010, according to the federal government’s Toxic Release Inventory.

Toxic chemicals were discharged to more than 1,400 waterways in all 50 states. The Ohio River ranked first for toxic discharges in 2010, followed by the Mississippi River and the New River in Virginia and North Carolina.

• This represents a small (2.6 percent) decrease in the overall volume of toxic releases since the previous edition of this report, released in 2009 and based on data from 2007.
• Nitrate compounds—which can cause serious health problems in infants if found in drinking water and which contribute to oxygen-depleted “dead zones” in waterways—were by far the largest toxic releases in terms of overall volume.
• Small as well as large waterways received heavy doses of toxics. Because of a single, large release of arsenic and metal compounds from a Nevada gold mine into three small creeks, the combined discharges of developmental toxicants in those creeks were larger than the discharges of such toxicants to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers combined.

• Toxic releases continued in already damaged waterways. The Calumet River system in Indiana and Illinois—home to five different Superfund toxic waste sites, and at one time so polluted that not even sludge worms could live there—ranked high on the list of developmental and reproductive toxic releases due to ongoing discharges from steel mills and an oil refinery.

Toxic chemicals linked to serious health effects were released in largeamounts to America’s waterways in 2010.

• Industrial facilities discharged approximately 1.5 million pounds of chemicals linked to cancer to more than 1,000 waterways during 2010. Nevada’s Burns Creek received the largest volume of carcinogenic releases, with a small neighboring creek placing third. The Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Tennessee River also suffered large releases of carcinogens. Pulp and paper mills, gold mines and chemical manufacturers were the industries that released the greatest volume of carcinogenic chemicals in 2010.
• About 626,000 pounds of chemicals linked to developmental disorders were discharged into more than 900 waterways. Burns Creek in Nevada, a small waterway near a gold mine, suffered the greatest amount of developmental toxicant discharges, followed by the Kanawha River in West Virginia and the Mississippi River. Gold mining was the largest source of developmental toxicants, followed by pesticide manufacturing and fossil fueled power generation.
• Approximately 354,000 pounds of chemicals linked to reproductive disorders were released to more than 900 waterways. West Virginia’s Kanawha River received the heaviest dose of reproductive toxicants, followed by the Mississippi, Ohio, and Brazos rivers.
• Discharges of persistent bioaccumulative toxics (including dioxin and mercury), organochlorines, and phthalates are also widespread. Safer industrial practices can reduce or eliminate discharges of these and other dangerous substances to America’s waterways.

To protect the public and the environment from toxic releases, the United States should prevent pollution by requiring industries to reduce their use of toxic chemicals and restore and strengthen Clean Water Act protectionsfor all of America’s waterways.

The United States should restore Clean Water Act protections to all of America’s waterways and improve enforcement of the Clean Water Act.

• The Obama Administration should clarify that the Clean Water Act applies to headwater streams, intermittent waterways, isolated wetlands and other waterways for which Clean Water Act protection has been called into question as a result of recent Supreme Court decisions.
• EPA and the states should strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act by, among other things, ratcheting down permitted pollution levels from industrial facilities, ensuring that permits are renewed on time, and requiring mandatory minimum penalties for polluters in violation of the law.
• EPA should eliminate loopholes— such as the allowance of “mixing zones” for persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals—that allow greater discharge of toxic chemicals into waterways.

The United States should revise its strategy for regulating toxic chemicals to encourage the development and use of safer alternatives. Specifically, the nation should:

• Require chemical manufacturers to test all chemicals for their safety and submit the results of that testing to the government and the public.
• Regulate chemicals based on their intrinsic capacity to cause harm to the environment or health, rather than basing regulation on resource-intensive and flawed efforts to determine “safe” levels of exposure to those chemicals.
• Require industries to disclose the amount of toxic chemicals they use in their facilities—safeguarding local residents’ right to know about potential public health threats in their community and creating incentives for industry to reduce its use of toxic chemicals.
• Require safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, where alternatives exist.

A bird prepares to swallow its prey on San Pablo Bay on Thursday, March 22, 2012, in San Rafael. A new report ranks the bay as being high on the list of waterways affected by toxic discharges. (IJ photo/Frankie Frost)

San Pablo Bay receives the highest volume of toxic discharges in the state, according to a report issued Thursday.

The report, titled “Wasting Our Waterways: Industrial Toxic Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act,” was issued by Los Angeles-based Environment California, which analyzed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data from 2010. The group is a statewide, citizen-based environmental advocacy organization.

San Pablo Bay — which stretches north of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and hugs the coasts of San Rafael and Novato — ranked first among waterways in the state for highest amount of total toxic discharges.

Just over 1 million pounds of toxics, including arsenic, benzene and mercury, entered the waterway. Those toxins can cause cancer, reproductive and development problems, as well as harm wildlife, according to the report.

Suisun Bay ranked third, and the San Francisco Bay ranked 12th in the state, according to the report.

ConocoPhillips’ Rodeo refinery released most of those toxics into San Pablo Bay as part of its oil refinery process, said Sean Carroll, federal field associate with Environment California. The data are reported to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory by industries that produce certain volumes of chemicals.

“We are not saying in our report that they are exceeding laws or permits, we are just reporting the numbers,” Carroll said. “But it raises questions about pollution and what is going into the water.”

ConocoPhillips officials could not be reached for comment.

In order to curb the toxic pollution in San Pablo and other bays, Environment California recommends industrial facilities reduce their toxic discharges to waterways by switching from hazardous chemicals to safer alternatives.

It also wants to see the EPA and state agencies issue permits with numeric limits for each type of toxic pollution discharged and ratchet down those limits over time, enforcing them with penalties.

Statewide, industrial facilities dumped 2.6 million pounds of toxic chemicals into waterways, and nationwide the figure was 226 million pounds, according to the report.

“A healthy bay is essential to our economy and also our quality of life,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, in a written statement. “We need a strong Clean Water Act to protect the bay and all of our waterways from toxic chemicals and pollution.”

Read the article at the Marin IJ

David