Erica Ahmann Smithies <[email protected]> Sent

From: Bordona, Brian To: Purvis, Kyra Subject: FW: City of St. Helena: Comments on DEIR for Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project Date: Monday, February 04, 2019 11:16:50 AM Attachments: Heiser West Draft EIR (Comments) 02042019.pdf

From: Erica Ahmann Smithies Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 11:09 AM To: Bordona, Brian Cc: Mark Prestwich ; Housh, Noah ; Geoff Ellsworth Subject: City of St. Helena: Comments on DEIR for Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project

Good morning Brian,

Attached are the City of St. Helena’s comments on the Draft EIR for the Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project.

If you have any questions or need clarification, please let me know.

Thank you,

Erica

Erica Ahmann Smithies, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer City of St. Helena 1572 Railroad Avenue (*new location) St. Helena, CA 94574 707-968-2629 (office) 707-312-1471 (cell)

1572 Railroad Ave. City of St. Helena St. Helena, CA 94574 “We will conduct city affairs on behalf of our citizens using an open and creative process.” Phone: (707) 968-2658

www.cityofsthelena.org

Sent by email Confirmation of Receipt Requested

February 4, 2019

Attn: Brian Bordona, Supervising Planner County of Napa Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department Conservation Division 1195 Third Street, Second Floor Napa, CA 94599-3092 [email protected]

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project Vineyard Project

Dear Mr. Bordona,

The City of St Helena has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project Vineyard Project. The proposed project is within the watershed of the primary drinking water source for the residents of the City of St. Helena, Bell Canyon Reservoir. The City relies on Bell Canyon Reservoir for nearly 50% of its potable drinking water supply. Consequently, it is imperative that the watershed of this reservoir be managed to protect the health and life safety of the residents of the City of St Helena.

The City has the following comments on the DEIR:

1. Section 1.1, the introduction of the DEIR references Appendix B: Heiser West-Lane Vineyard Erosion Control Plan Project (ECPA; #P15-00389-ECPA.) The Erosion Control Plan should be signed by the engineer of record. 2. Section 1.4, the City strongly supports the No Project Alternative and Reduced Oak Impact Alternative in order to protect and reduce any impacts to the Bell Canyon watershed. 3. Section 1.6, Impact 4.5: Geology and Soils, no mitigation measures are currently indicated for this section, but should include at a minimum, the implementation of the approved Erosion Control Plan as part of the Proposed Project. 4. Section 1.6, Impact 4.7: Hazardous Materials, the City of St. Helena should be included on the review process of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 IPM plan approval since it’s within

the Bell Canyon Watershed and any chemical spills have the potential to significantly impact the City’s water supply. 5. Section 1.6, Impact 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, no mitigation measures are included, but per Appendix K: Hydraulic Analysis, the total volume of runoff from each of the design rainstorm event indicates a decline under post-Project conditions. The City strongly opposes any reduction in flow to the Bell Canyon Reservoir as this directly reduces the available water supply to the community. 6. Appendix J, Erosion Analysis, should be signed by the consultant of record. 7. Appendix K, Hydrologic Analysis, should be signed by the consultant of record. 8. Appendix K, Hydrologic Analysis, is missing Appendix D, Napa Valley Vineyard Engineering Erosion Control Plan which is utilized in the analysis. The City cannot verify that it’s the same Plan as the DEIR’s Appendix B without it being included in the Analysis section.

In addition to the above comments specific to the DEIR, the City remains concerned about cumulative impacts to the water quality and water quantity that the proposed vineyard conversion and others may have on the Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed. The water quality assurances in the DEIR are on paper while the actual implementation of the mitigation measures can fail with human error, lack of attention and County enforcement to the detriment of the City’s water supply.

Per the City’s 2014 Bell Canyon Reservoir Sanitary Survey Update by Palencia Consulting Engineers, wineries/vineyards continue to be a threat to water quality with storm water runoff, sediment discharges due to erosion, and pesticide use. And while the City may not currently have credible evidence that sediment or other pollutants will impact the watershed, the City will continue to monitor what is entering the City’s water supply and any changes post project implementation.

Please pass these comments/concerns on to the consultant working on the analysis and EIR document. Please continue to include all copied City staff and officials on any updates sent regarding this project.

Should you require further information, please call or email me.

Sincerely,

Erica Ahmann Smithies, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer [email protected] (707) 968-2629

cc: Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor, [email protected] Mark Prestwich, City Manager, [email protected] Noah Housh, Planning & Community Improvement Director, [email protected]

2

From: Peter Broderick To: Bordona, Brian Cc: Purvis, Kyra Subject: Comments on Heiser West Lane Erosion Control Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2018032042) Date: Monday, February 04, 2019 1:17:13 PM Attachments: Final CBD Comment Letter on Heiser Vineyard DEIR.docx.pdf

Mr. Bordona,

Attached are the Center for Biological Diversity’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Heiser West Lane Erosion Control Plan (State Clearinghouse # 2018032042). A hardcopy will follow by FedEx with a USB drive containing all of the references cited. I kindly request that you confirm your receipt of these comments and place me on the County’s notice list for this project.

Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Peter J. Broderick

Staff Attorney Urban Wildlands Program Center for Biological Diversity

February 4, 2019

Sent via email and FedEx

Brian Bordona Supervising Planner Napa County Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department 1195 Third Street, 2nd Floor Napa, CA 94559 Email: [email protected] Phone: (707) 259-5935

Re: Heiser West Lane Erosion Control Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2018032042)

Dear Mr. Bordona:

The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) submits the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Heiser West Lane Erosion Control Plan (Application #P15-00389-ECPA) (“Project”), located at 340 West Lane, Angwin, California. The Center has reviewed the DEIR closely and is concerned that the Project and the County’s environmental review of the Project fall into a familiar and unfortunate pattern of failing to account for the negative environmental impacts that vineyard conversions are having on Napa’s forests and natural spaces. The County should not approve the Project until, at a minimum, it has rectified deficiencies the Center has identified in the DEIR, including considering additional alternatives and properly evaluating the Project’s cumulative impacts.

The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 68,000 members and activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Napa County.

I. THE COUNTY’S CURRENT TRAJECORY OF VINEYARD CONVERSION PROJECTS THREATENS NAPA’S LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL WELL-BEING.

Napa Valley is renowned worldwide for its rich wine culture, which attracted 3.5 million visitors that contributed almost $2 billion (spent in wineries, restaurants, lodging, and shopping)

to the County’s economy in 2016 (Visit Napa Valley, 2017). However, wining and dining are not the only features of Napa that visitors cherish. According to a recent poll, visitors valued Napa’s wine and countryside scenery equally (Visit Napa Valley, 2017). The lack of extensive development throughout the County has helped the County retain much of its rich biodiversity and beauty. However, in the last several years, new development pressures have threatened to upend this balance. For example, the 2017 Walt Ranch vineyard development, the recently approved Davis Estates Friesen Vineyards project, and the proposed Le Colline Vineyard will all have significant impacts on Napa’s environment. As there is little space left on the valley floor to plant new vineyards, established vintners and prospective winegrowers now look to the hillsides of Napa County. Unfortunately, the Project fits this pattern of continued vineyard development at the cost to Napa County’s natural spaces.

The importance of protecting these natural spaces cannot be overstated. Napa County is a biodiversity hotspot both within California and globally. It is located within the California Floristic Province, one of five Mediterranean biomes around the world known for high levels of plant diversity and endemism (Cowling et al. 1996; Rundel et al., 2016). Due to its dynamic topography, which ranges in elevation from 0 to 4,200 feet above mean sea level, and its varying microclimates, Napa County boasts a unique and diverse assemblage of habitats that host numerous plants and wildlife (Napa County, 2005). Despite covering only 0.5% of California’s area, Napa County supports more than one third (>1100) of California’s native plant species and 150 special-status plant and wildlife species, including the threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), the endangered Ridgway’s rail (formerly the California clapper rail, Rallus longirostris obsoletus), and the threatened steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Central California Coast DPS (Napa County, 2005; Thorne et al., 2004). These ecosystems are the backbone of Napa’s idyllic scenery, and they provide important ecosystem services vital to the County’s prosperity and way of life, such as water quality protection and erosion control. However, agricultural expansion into important habitats threaten these biological communities. Without appropriate climate-wise land use planning, Napa County could lose these special ecosystems and the valuable benefits they provide.

A. The County should preserve as much existing natural habitat as possible.

One of the express goals of Napa County’s Strategic Plan, approved on January 15, 2019, is to “[p]rovide greater environmental protection for environmental resources, particularly agricultural land, forests, air and water” (Napa County 2019). To accomplish this, the County needs to conserve existing natural habitats, including forestland.

Studies have shown that the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and the services they provide depend on the conservation of biodiversity at a landscape scale (Bengtsson et al., 2003; Loreau et al., 2003). There is evidence that different species can have a collective role in keeping ecosystems healthy (Klein et al., 2003; Levine et al., 2004; Lyons & Schwartz, 2001). In addition, conserving biodiversity allows for redundancies in different species’ ecological functions, which increases an ecosystem’s resiliency to disturbances (e.g., flooding or fires) or environmental change (e.g., environmental shifts due to climate change) (Bengtsson et al., 2003; Elmqvist et al., 2003; Loreau et al., 2003). In complex landscapes, such as those in Napa County maintaining high-diversity, heterogeneous habitats and special status species is essential to February 4, 2019 Page 2

protecting biodiversity and facilitating sustainable ecosystem services (Houlahan & Findlay, 2004). Unfortunately, land use management often focuses on just a few species or local processes (e.g., local water quality) without considering the entire watershed or ecological system, which is risky because it can result in reduced biodiversity, limited ecosystem functions, and reduced resiliency (Tscharntke et al., 2005).

A. The County should preserve existing forestlands.

According to national cropland data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Napa County lost almost 8,000 acres of forest (deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest) between 2008 and 2017, most of which was likely replaced with croplands for grapes (Merenlender, 2000; Potter, 2015). Based on County vegetation cover data (Thorne et al. 2003), tens of thousands of acres of forest, mostly consisting of oak woodlands, remain vulnerable to similar development in Napa County. This is alarming because oak woodlands and other wooded areas, such as pine forests and riparian woodlands, provide valuable habitat for a wide variety of species (Bernhardt & Swiecki, 2001; Jedlicka, et al., 2014; Lawrence et al., 2011; Napa County, 2005; Tietje et al., 2015). California has already lost over a million acres of oak woodlands since 1950 (Bolsinger, 1988), and riparian areas have been dramatically reduced to less than 95% of historic levels. If this pattern of forest and woodland conversion continues, Napa County will lose irreplaceable biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Forest cover plays a critical role in regulating water flow, maintaining water quality, promoting groundwater recharge, and maintaining overall watershed health. In addition, forests are an important carbon sink that can help moderate the impacts of climate change (Pan et al., 2011). Reduced forest cover has been shown to result in increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and water temperatures; changes in channel morphology; decreased soil retention; and decreased terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (Brown & Krygier, 1970; Elliot, 2010; Jedlicka et al., 2014; Lawrence et al., 2011; Moyle et al., 2011). In contrast, retaining forested areas in agricultural lands has been shown to remove high concentrations of agricultural pollutants (i.e., nitrates) in groundwater (Zhang & Hiscock, 2011), and some researchers argue that at a global scale, trees are linked to increased precipitation and water availability (Ellison et al., 2012). Because of their importance to biodiversity and vital ecosystem services, the County cannot afford to lose more of these valuable habitats.

B. The County should protect its special-status, rare, and endemic flora and fauna by conserving habitat.

Napa County supports numerous special status-species—81 plant species and 69 animal species (Napa County, 2005). As mentioned previously, the Ordinance should prioritize preserving special-status species. In addition, because Napa County is within the California Floristic Province, special attention should also be given to the more than 1,100 native California plant species in the County. Napa County is a rare plants hotspot; it supports five times more rare plant species compared to California’s overall average (Napa County, 2005). Special-status and rare plants occur throughout the County’s diverse habitats, with a high concentration of species in chaparral/shrubland, serpentine grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian woodlands, wetlands, and rock outcrops (Napa County, 2005). In addition, some non-forested habitats, such as chaparral

February 4, 2019 Page 3

ecosystems and native grasses, can be significant carbon sinks, which makes them additional resources to help combat climate change impacts (Koteen et al., 2011; Luo et al., 2007; Quideau et al., 1998). With thousands of acres of chaparral/shrubland and grassland vulnerable to development, the County should prioritize protecting its heterogeneous natural landscape and the botanical treasures within these habitats.

C. The County should ensure wildlife movement and habitat connectivity.

Habitat connectivity is vital for wildlife movement and biodiversity conservation. Limiting movement and dispersal with barriers (e.g., development, roads, or fenced-off croplands) can affect animals’ behavior, movement patterns, reproductive success, and physiological state, which can lead to significant impacts on individual wildlife, populations, communities, and landscapes (Ceia-Hasse et al., 2018; Cushman, 2006; Haddad et al., 2015; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000; van der Ree et al., 2011). Individuals can die off, populations can become isolated, sensitive species can become locally extinct, and important ecological processes like plant pollination and nutrient cycling can be lost. In addition, connectivity between high quality habitat areas in heterogeneous landscapes is important to allow for range shifts and species migrations as climate changes (Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Cushman et al. 2013). Lack of wildlife connectivity results in decreased biodiversity and degraded ecosystems. Thus, measures to ensure habitat connectivity and wildlife movement at the local scale are critical.

Local connectivity that links aquatic and terrestrial habitats would allow various sensitive species to persist, including state- and federally-protected California red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. At a regional scale, medium- and large-sized mammals that occur in Napa County, such as mountain lions (Puma concolor), bobcats (Lynx rufus), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), ring-tailed cats (Bassariscus astutus), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), require large patches of heterogeneous habitat to forage, seek shelter/refuge, and find mates. At a global scale, Napa County is an important stop for about 400 resident and migratory bird species within the Pacific Flyway, a north-south migratory corridor the extends from Alaska to Patagonia. For example, while Anna’s hummingbirds (Calypte anna) often reside in Napa County’s chaparral, oak woodlands, and riparian areas year-round, Allen’s hummingbirds (Selasphorus sasin) migrate from Mexico in the spring to nest in Napa’s oak woodlands and riparian areas, and rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) migrate through Napa on their way to and from their breeding grounds in Canada and their over-wintering grounds in the Gulf Coast. Napa County is a critical hub for local and global biodiversity; wildlife movement and habitat connectivity must be maintained throughout the County.

A business-as-usual approach to approving timber harvest and conversion of forestland and oak woodlands cannot be squared with the County’s pressing conservation needs.

February 4, 2019 Page 4

II. THE DEIR FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), and CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”) impose numerous requirements on public agencies proposing to approve or carry out projects, and mandate that significant environmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Unfortunately, the DEIR for the Project fails to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in numerous respects.

A. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze or mitigate the Project’s impacts to forestland.

The DEIR purports to adopt significance criteria for Agriculture and Forestry resources, stating that “[i]mpacts would be considered significant if the Proposed Project were to: . . . [r]esult in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.” (DEIR p. 4.1-6) (drawing from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). Yet the DEIR makes no attempt to apply this significance criterion in any meaningful way. The County acknowledges that 4.21 acres out of 11.41 acres on the property will be cleared—approximately 37%, more than one third of the forest on the property. (Id.) But rather than actually evaluating the significance of this timber harvest and conversion, the DEIR merely concludes, “[w]ith the vast amount of forest occurring due west and northwest of the project site and east of the Town of Angwin, the loss of 4.21 acres of forestland adjacent to the Town of Angwin would not be considered a significant impact.” (Id.) The DEIR then attempts to downplay the significance of this forestland conversion by stating—twice—that Napa County has 45,545 acres of land containing commercial timber species, and thus “[t]he loss of 4.21 acres of timberland would account for a minimal portion (less than 0.01 percent) of forestland acreage in Napa County.” (DEIR at 4.1-8.)

CEQA requires that agencies support their significance determinations with substantial evidence in the record. (See Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 832, 839-44 (EIR failed to support with substantial evidence its determination that greenhouse gas impacts were less than significant, and misapplied its significance threshold by, in part, comparing the project’s greenhouse gas emissions against the emissions of the entire state, which necessarily underplayed their significance).) The County’s bald conclusion that clearing and replacing one third of the property’s forestland is insignificant lacks any evidentiary support whatsoever. The County makes no meaningful attempt to apply its adopted significance criterion. By the County’s crude analysis, nearly any amount of forestland conversion on a parcel would be found to be insignificant, when measured against all existing forestland in the County. Accordingly, the EIR fails to properly evaluate or mitigate for impacts from the permanent loss of forestland and its associated benefits, which include aesthetics, habitat, biological resources, water quality, and carbon sequestration. This deficiency is compounded by the fact that, as described below, the DEIR fails to properly consider the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impacts to forestland conversion.

February 4, 2019 Page 5

Because the DEIR improperly finds that the loss of forestland through conversion to non- forest use is less-than-significant, it makes no attempt to mitigate this significant impact. (DEIR p. 4.1-8.) Yet such mitigation is possible and feasible. For example, the Project could include permanent protection on all or a portion of the forestland remaining on the property through a conservation easement. However, aside from a small conservation easement to be placed on less than an acre of remaining oak woodlands, the DEIR does not propose to place under conservation easement any of the 7.2 acres of forestland (DEIR p. 4.1-8) on the property that will not be cut down as part of the Project. Because the DEIR fails to apply its significance threshold for forestland conversion, fails to analyze the significant impacts to forestland conversion, and fails to consider mitigation for those impacts, the DEIR violates CEQA.

B. The DEIR’s analysis of alternatives is critically flawed.

An EIR must “consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation.” (Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) The “key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project’s objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts.” (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1089.) Accordingly, the EIR must supply a rigorous analysis of reasonable alternatives to the Project to comply with this strict mandate. The DEIR fails to meet this requirement because (1) it fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives, and (2) its description and analysis of the single alternative considered is inadequate.

Aside from the statutorily required no-project alternative, the DEIR considered only a single alternative to the project: the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative. (DEIR at 5-2 to 5-9.) Although, as explained below, this alternative is described in confusing and contradictory terms, it appears to very closely resemble the Project, with a mere 5% (.3 acre) reduction in the footprint. (DEIR at 5-3.) At the very least, the EIR should have included and considered a truly reduced footprint alternative. The DEIR should also have considered a No Timber Harvest Alternative. As courts have made clear, “[a] potential alternative should not be excluded from consideration merely because it would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57 (quotations omitted).) A single alternative that is equivalent to 95% of the proposed project does not represent the “reasonable range” that the CEQA Guidelines require.

The DEIR’s description of the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative is inadequate. EIRs must contain sufficient information about each alternative to permit the public and decision-makers to effectively evaluate the relative merits of the alternatives and the Project. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a); City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. City Council (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 869, 892.) Yet the DEIR’s description of the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative is cursory and contradictory. For example, the first sentence of the discussion of this alternative states: “Under the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative, approximately 0.3 acres of would be [sic] removed from the project, of that 0.17 acres of Mixed Oak Alliance would be avoided through a reduction in the vineyard acreage.” (DEIR at 5-3.) The accompanying Figure 5-1 suggests that the standalone northwest vineyard block would not be included in this alternative. Yet, in the same section, one page later,

February 4, 2019 Page 6

the DEIR states: “The Reduced Oak Impact Alternative would result in the same demand for groundwater resources as the Proposed Project, since vineyard acreage would remain the same.” (DEIR at 5-5.)

Thus, the DEIR is completely unclear as to what the size and shape of the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative’s footprint actually is.1 To complicate matters, the DEIR states that “[t]he Reduced Oak Impact Alternative would result in slightly lesser impacts as compared to those of the Proposed Project because it has a lesser footprint and does not involve timber harvest.” (DEIR at 5-8 (emphasis added).) However, nowhere else does the document suggest that the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative would not involve any timber harvest. Additionally, it is unclear why the Erosion Control Plan for the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative would cover only 4 acres of the site (DEIR at 5-8) as the alternative supposedly entails a reduction in the project area only of .3 acres, from 5.7 to 5.3 total acres (DEIR at 5-3).

To make matters worse, the DEIR claims that the impacts to water quality from the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative would be greater than under the proposed Project. (DEIR at 5- 8 (Table 5-1).) The EIR arrives at this facially implausible proposition by implying that cleared vineyard blocks are superior to existing oak woodlands at preventing runoff and erosion. But it provides no substantial evidence to support this conclusion. What’s more, the fact that the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative would allegedly have greater water quality impacts than the Project further undercuts any claim that the DEIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives.

The lack of a reasonable range of alternatives and the confusing and contradictory description and analysis of the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative mean that the public and decision-makers cannot meaningfully evaluate the alternative’s potential impacts, nor compare them with the impacts from the Project and the no-project alternative. The DEIR must be revised to correct these deficiencies and recirculated.

C. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts.

An EIR must examine the cumulative impacts of the project under consideration. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355.) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project “when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).) While an agency is not expected to foresee the unforeseeable, it is

1 Elsewhere, when evaluating the alternative’s ability to meet project objectives, the DEIR even suggests that the vineyard blocks and project footprint may actually be expanded under the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative. (DEIR at 5-3 (“The goal of avoiding highly erosion-prone areas and preventing erosion would also not be met [under the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative] as the expanded areas of vineyard blocks are more prone to erosion due to slopes and soil conditions.”) and 5-5 (“Impacts to water quality were less than significant with the Proposed Project, but would be greater under the Reduced Oak Impact Alternative, as the vineyard blocks are nearer to drainages.”).) February 4, 2019 Page 7

expected to use its “best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15144; see also City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 96; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 428.) The purpose of analyzing cumulative environmental impacts is to assess adverse environmental change “as a whole greater than the sum of its parts.” (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 625.) Absent meaningful cumulative analysis there would be no control of development and “piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the [] environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.)

The DEIR fails in this analysis in three keys ways. First, an EIR must provide an explanation supported with substantial evidence for the geographic area used in the cumulative impacts analysis. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(3).) The DEIR’s analysis considers only those past and present projects within a three-mile radius of the Project. Yet it supplies no geographic, legal, or biological reason for this three-mile limitation. (See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1216 (EIR failed to explain the criteria for determining the geographic area of impact analysis and ignored a similar project located 3.6 miles away).) As the DEIR admits, this three-mile radius does not even encompass the entirety of the Bell Canyon watershed in which the Project is located. (DEIR at 6-2.) The EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis is deficient and should be revised to include consideration of impacts from, all similar projects within a larger geographic region, whose scope is supported by substantial evidence.

Second, the County fails to explain why it its cumulative impacts analysis is limited to considering future projects to take place within the next ten years. Given that vineyard development has continued apace for the past 25 years in Napa County, it is at the very least “reasonably foreseeable” that such development will continue well beyond the next decade. The County should consider projects forecast to take place in the next 25 years.

Third, the DEIR’s treatment of cumulative impacts to forestland conversion is an especially egregious example of how it’s cumulative impacts analysis falls short. The DEIR states that the projects considered in the cumulative impacts area (Table 6-1), along with the present/foreseeable projects considered, would result in the removal of 1,857 acres of forestland, (which represents 10% of the area within the 3 mile radius). (DEIR at 6-12.) The County then reasons that because this represents only 4% of County forestland, there is no significant cumulative impact. (Id.) The County cannot have it both ways by considering cumulative forest conversion impacts only from projects within 3 miles of the Project site but then comparing those impacts against all existing lands within the County. This flawed approach dilutes the true extent of the Project’s cumulative impacts to forestland conversion. Thus, the DEIR fails as an informational document. The EIR must be revised to include a legally sufficient analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts, including impacts to forestland conversion.

D. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate or avoid the Project’s impacts to oak woodlands.

February 4, 2019 Page 8

CEQA requires that an EIR describe feasible measures which could minimize a project’s significant adverse impacts. (Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).) Such measures must be “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments.” (Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).) This is in order to ensure “that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.) A discussion of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and important specifics on implementation of the mitigation measures are all missing from the DEIR. Without the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures, the DEIR mitigation measures are insufficient and inadequate.

The Administrative Draft Biological Assessment2 proposes retaining 0.63 acres of Mixed Oak Alliance outside of the proposed clearing limits as mitigation for the Project’s removal of oak woodlands. (DEIR, Appendix E at 47). So does the DEIR’s Executive Summary (DEIR at 1- 9 (Table 1-1)). Yet the DEIR’s Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 provides: “The remaining 0.34 acres of oak woodland located outside of clearing limits shall be designated for preservation in a mitigation easement with a County-approved organization or other means of permanent protection. . . . The exact area to be conserved shall be determined and appropriately delineated through consultation between the Applicant and the County, and recorded prior to commencement of any land clearing associated with the Proposed Project with the Napa County Recorder’s office.” (DEIR 4.3-25.) The DEIR’s contradictory information about how much acreage will be preserved, its lack of information on who or what organization will retain the conservation easement, its option for the project applicant to rely on unspecified “other means” instead of a conservation easement, and its failure to identify the area to be covered, render this mitigation measure unacceptably vague and ineffective.

Furthermore, a 2:1 mitigation ratio is insufficient to fully mitigate for the impacts from removal of oak woodlands. Not only are forests and woodlands important to sustain the County’s unique biodiversity, but they are also important for many ecosystem services that the County’s residents rely on for safety and economic stability, including water quality protection, carbon sequestration, erosion control, and soil retention (Brown & Krygier, 1970; Elliot, 2010; Jedlicka et al., 2014; Lawrence et al., 2011; Moyle et al., 2011; Pan et al., 2011). Santa Barbara County, through its Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Ordinance, requires for example a 15:1 mitigation ratio (via replacement planting or protection of naturally occurring oaks between six inches and six feet tall) for removed oak trees (Santa Barbara County, 2003). If avoidance and minimization measures are truly infeasible, the County should require that tree canopy be mitigated at a minimum of 5:1 onsite and should prioritize preserving in perpetuity existing habitat onsite and within developable lands.

2 The DEIR fails to provide the public with a copy of the final Biological Resources Assessment. The copies made available to the public and included as appendices to the DEIR bears an “Administrative Draft” stamp, indicating that they are unfinished work product and cannot serve as the evidentiary basis for conclusions in the DEIR. The County must include the final Biological Resources Assessment and recirculate the DEIR.

February 4, 2019 Page 9

In any event, the Project’s treatment of oak woodland is inconsistent with Napa County General Plan3 policy CON-24, which requires that oak woodland habitat to be maintained where feasible. Subsection (b) of that policy allows landowners to “[p]rovide replacement of lost oak woodlands or preservation of like habitat at a 2:1 ratio when retention of existing vegetation is found to be infeasible. Removal of oak species limited in distribution shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.” (Napa County General Plan (June 23, 2009), p. CON-30.) The DEIR does not demonstrate that retaining the existing vegetation is infeasible, a necessary finding before falling back on the 2:1 mitigation. In fact, the DEIR demonstrates just the opposite, by considering its “Reduced Oak Impact Alternative,” which it considered and determined “would generally meet project objectives.” (DEIR p. 5.3-5.5; see CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) (EIR must “must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives” and need not consider infeasible alternatives).) Because the “Reduced Oak Impact Alternative” is the only alternative—aside from the no-project alternative and the Project—that the DEIR considered, the County has made the de facto finding that avoiding the loss of oak woodlands on the project site is feasible. Thus, the Project as proposed cannot be squared with General Plan Policy CON-24.

III. CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the DEIR for the Heiser West Lane Erosion Control Plan. For the reasons described above, the Center is concerned that this project fits into an unfortunate pattern of approving vineyard conversion projects that take a toll on the valuable forests, habitat, and natural places that are vital to the County’s prosperity and well-being. Furthermore, the County’s environmental review of the Project is deficient in several respects, as described above, and fails to comply with CEQA. The County should decline to approve the Project as proposed, and should, at a minimum, revise the Project and conduct additional environmental review to address these concerns, and circulate a new Draft EIR for public review and comment.

Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.

Sincerely,

Peter Broderick, Staff Attorney 1212 Broadway, Suite #800 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 844-7100 [email protected]

3 Local agencies’ land use decisions must be consistent with all applicable land use policies, including the General Plan and all of its elements. (See Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1562-1563.) February 4, 2019 Page 10

References

Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., … Nyström, M. (2003). Reserves, Resilience and Dynamic Landscapes. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(6), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.389 Bernhardt, E. A., & Swiecki, T. J. (2001). Restoring Oak Woodlands in California : Theory and Practice. Bolsinger, C. L. (1988). The hardwoods of California’s timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin (Vol. PNW-RB-148). Portland, OR. Brown, G. W., & Krygier, J. T. (1970). Effects of Clear‐Cutting on Stream Temperature. Water Resources Research, 6(4), 1133–1139. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR006i004p01133 Ceia-Hasse, A., Navarro, L. M., Borda-de-Água, L., & Pereira, H. M. (2018). Population persistence in landscapes fragmented by roads: Disentangling isolation, mortality, and the effect of dispersal. Ecological Modelling, 375(December 2016), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.01.021 Cowling, R. M., Rundel, P. W., Lamont, B. B., Arroyo, M. T. K., & Arianoutsou, M. (1996). Plant diversity in mediterranean-climate regions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11(9), 362–366. https://doi.org/10.1159/000157268 Cushman, S. A. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 128, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031 Cushman, S. A., McRae, B., Adriaensen, F., Beier, P., Shirley, M., & Zeller, K. (2013). Biological corridors and connectivity. In D. W. Macdonald & K. J. Willis (Eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 (First Edit, pp. 384–403). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Elliot, W. J. (2010). Effects of Forest Biomass Use on Watershed Processes in the Western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 25(1), 12–17. Ellison, D., Futter, M. N., & Bishop, K. (2012). On the forest cover-water yield debate: From demand- to supply-side thinking. Global Change Biology, 18(3), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., & Norberg, J. (2003). Elmquist_etal_2003_Response diversity, ecosystems change and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(9), 488–494. Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., … Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth ’ s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(e1500052), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052 Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006 Houlahan, J. E., & Findlay, C. S. (2004). Estimating the “critical” distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landscape Ecology, 19(6), 677–690. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000042912.87067.35 Jedlicka, J. A., Greenberg, R., & Raimondi, P. T. (2014). Vineyard and riparian habitat, not nest box presence, alter avian community composition. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 126(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1676/13-058.1 Klein, A.-M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Tscharntke, T. (2003). Pollination of Coffea canephora in relation to local and regional agroforestry management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(5),

February 4, 2019 Page 11

837–845. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00847.x Koteen, L. E., Baldocchi, D. D., & Harte, J. (2011). Invasion of non-native grasses causes a drop in soil carbon storage in California grasslands. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044001 Lawrence, J. E., Deitch, M. J., & Resh, V. H. (2011). Effects of vineyard coverage and extent on benthic macroinvertebrates in streams of Northern California. Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology, 47(4), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2011043 Levine, J. M., Adler, P. B., & Yelenik, S. G. (2004). A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecology Letters, 7, 975–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461- 0248.2004.00657.x Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., & Gonzalez, A. (2003). Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(22), 12765–12770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9156-3 Luo, H., Oechel, W. C., Hastings, S. J., Zulueta, R., Qian, Y., & Kwon, H. (2007). Mature semiarid chaparral ecosystems can be a significant sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global Change Biology, 13, 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01299.x Lyons, K. G., & Schwartz, M. W. (2001). Rare species loss alters ecosystem function - Invasion resistance. Ecology Letters, 4, 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00235.x Merenlender, A. M. (2000). Mapping vineyard expansion provides information on agriculture and the environment. California Agriculture, 54(3), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v054n03p7 Moyle, P. B., Katz, J. V. E., & Quiñones, R. M. (2011). Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment. Biological Conservation, 144, 2414–2423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.002 Napa County. (2005). Napa County Baseline Data Report: Chapter 4 Biological Resources. Napa County. (2018). 2017 Agricultural Crop Report. Napa County. (2019). Napa County Strategic Plan 2019-2022. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., … Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persitent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333, 988–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-006-1102-z Potter, C. (2015). Estimating the loss of perennial woody vegetation to cropland in California using 20 years of landsat image analysis. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(5), 947–955. https://doi.org/10.6088/ijes.2014050100089 Quideau, S. A., Graham, R. C., Chadwick, O. A., & Wood, H. B. (1998). Organic carbon sequestration under chaparral and pine after four decades of soil development. Geoderma, 83, 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00142-0 Rundel, P. W., Arroyo, M. T. K., Cowling, R. M., Keeley, J. E., Lamont, B. B., & Vargas, P. (2016). Mediterranean biomes: evolution of their vegetation, floras, and climate. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 47, 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032330 Santa Barbara County. (2003). Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration. Article IX of Chapter 35 Santa Barbara County Code. Thorne, J. H., Kennedy, J. A., Quinn, J. F., McCoy, M., Keeler-Wolf, T., & Menke, J. (2004). A vegetation map of Napa County using the manual of California vegetation classification and its comparison to other digital vegetation maps. Madroño, 51(4), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/41425563

February 4, 2019 Page 12

Tietje, W. D., Weller, T. J., & Yim, C. C. (2015). Bat activity at remnant oak trees in California Central Coast vineyards. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-251. Berkeley, CA. Trombulak, S. C., & Frissell, C. A. (2000). Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - Ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8, 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461- 0248.2005.00782.x van der Ree, R., Jaeger, J. A. G., van der Grift, E. A., & Clevenger, A. P. (2011). Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: Road ecology is moving toward larger scales. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03982-160148 Visit Napa Valley. (2017). Visit Napa Valley 2016 Visitor Profile Final Report of Findings. Zhang, H., & Hiscock, K. M. (2011). Modelling the effect of forest cover in mitigating nitrate contamination of groundwater: a case study of the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer in the East Midlands, UK. Journal of Hydrology, 399, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.042

February 4, 2019 Page 13

From: Bordona, Brian To: Purvis, Kyra Subject: FW: Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project-SCH2018032042 Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:23:05 AM Attachments: Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project-SCH2018032042-Bordona-ALLEN020419.pdf

From: Hultman, Debbie@Wildlife Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 4:39 PM To: Bordona, Brian Cc: Allen, Garrett@Wildlife ; Weiss, Karen@Wildlife ; Weightman, Craig@Wildlife ; OPR State Clearinghouse Subject: Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project-SCH2018032042

Mr. Bordona,

Please see the attached letter. Original to follow.

Thank you,

Debbie Hultman |Assistant to the Regional Manager California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Bay Delta Region 2825 Cordelia Road, Ste. 100, Fairfield, CA 94534 707.428.2037 | [email protected]

State of California - Natural Resources Aqency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100 Fairfield, CA 94534 (707) 428-2002 www.wildlife.ca.qov

February 4, 2019

Mr. Brian Bordona Napa County Planning, Building, and Environmental Services 1195 Third Street, Suite 210 Napa, CA 94559

Dear Mr. Bordona:

Subject: Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project #P15-00389 ECPA, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2018032042, Town of Angwin, Napa County

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Project (Project). CDFW is submitting comments on the draff EIR to inform Napa County, as the Lead Agency, of our concerns regarding potentially significant impacts to sensitive resources associated with the proposed Project.

CDFW is a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15386 and is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the - State's biological resources. CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit, the Native Plant Protection Act, the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the State's fish and wildlife trust resources.

Regulatory Requirements

CESA prohibits unauthorized take of candidate, threatened, and endangered species. Therefore, if "take" or adverse impacts to foothill yellow-legged frogs or any other species listed under CESA cannot be avoided either during Project activities or over the life of the Project, a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained (pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2080 et seq.). Issuance of a CESA ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; therefore, the CEQA document should specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the proposed Project will impact any CESA-listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required to obtain a CESA ITP. More information on the CESA permitting process can be found on the CDFW website at https://www.wildlife.ca.qov/ConserQation/CESA.

Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement CDFW requires an entity to notify CDFW before commencing any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed. Ephemeral and/or intermittent streams and drainages (that are dry for periods of time or only flow during periods of

Conserving Calfornia's Wildlife Since 1870 Mr. Brian Bordona February 4, 2019 Page 2

rainfall) are also subject to Fish and Game Code section 1 602; and CDFW may require an LSAA with the applicant, pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. or the Fish and Game Code.

Issuance of an LSAA is subject to CEQA. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the Project. The CEQA document should identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments for completion of the agreement. To obtain information about the LSAA notification process, please access our website at https://www.wildlife.ca.qov/conservation/Isa or to request a notification package, contact CDFW's Bay Delta Regional Office at (707) 428-2002.

CDFW also has jurisdiction over actions that may result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code Sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird)..Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish and Game Code Section 3511 ). Migratory raptors are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Project Description and Environmental Setting

The Project site is located at 340 West Lane in the Town of Angwin, in north-western Napa County within the southeast portion of the Bell Canyon Reservoir watershed. The property consists of approximately 11.41 acres of forestland as defined under Public Resources Code section 12220(g). The forestland consists of approximately O.81 acres of Mixed Oak Alliance, and approximately 10.60 acres of Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Alliance. The remaining approximately 9.41 acres of the approximately 20.55-acre property consist of non-timber lands, including approximately 3.86 acres of mixed manzanita and 4.40 acres of existing agriculture. There are two ephemeral drainages on the property. Drainage 1 flows northeast where it flows into a small man-made, concrete and rock-lined cistern. The northern section of Drainage 2 is the outlet for the existing reservoir located east of the property boundary. Drainage 2 conveys flow onto the property once the reservoir reaches storage capacity, flowing south to north across the eastern boundary of the property, eventually exiting the property along the northwestern property. Surrounding land uses include vineyard development, rural residential uses, and permanently protected open space and forested land.

The Project is to develop 4.4 acres of vineyard (3 vineyard blocks) on the 20.55-acre property. The 4.4-acre disturbance area is composed of Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Alliance, and oak woodland habitat.

Comments and Concerns

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) The Biological Resources section of the draff EIR, page 4.3-23, discusses the Project's potential impacts on northern spotted owl (NSO). The draff EIR states that, "the Proposed Project has the potential to impact NSO habitat should it result in the removal of suitable NSO foraging habitat Mr. Brian Bordona February 4, 2019 Page 3

identified within the central Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Alliance." The draft EIR states that 3.94 acres of NSO foraging habitat Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Alliance, will be cleared for vineyard development. While the draff EIR asserts that there is no suitable nesting habitat within the proposed clearing limits, it does state that potential take of NSO could occur if NSO were to forage within the Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Alliance during clearing activities.

The Project may also have short-term adverse impacts from Project activities to NSO, such as disturbance from elevated sound levels or human presence near nest sites. Disturbance may reach the level of take when at least one of the following conditions is met: Project-generated sound exceeds ambient nesting conditions by 20 to 25 decibels (dB); Project-generated sound, when added to existing ambient conditions, exceeds 90dB; human activities occur within a visual line-of-site distance of 40 meters or less from a nest. If NSO are within the Project vicinity, the draff EIR should address noise and visual disturbance to NSO from Project activities and provide measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to active nest sites near the Project footprint. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has provided technical guidance for analyzing when sound and visual disturbance reaches a level that may result in take in their document, Estimating the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California, dated July 26, 2006. Avoidance and minimization measures should include: seasonal no-work buffers around the activity center as described in USFWS's Northern Spotted Owl Take Avoidance Analysis and Guidance (2011 ) or alternative measures approved by USFWS and CDFW.

The draft EIR does not propose mitigation measures to prevent take of NSO and to mitigate for permanent impacts to NSO habitat. First, the draft EIR should include a mitigation measure that states protocol-level surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist following the survey guidelines outlined in the USFWS Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Ow/s, dated January 2012. If NSO are observed during surveys, CDFW recommends avoiding all Project-related activities within O.25 miles of active nests during the breeding season from March 15 to August 31. Second, the draft EIR should include mitigation for the permanent loss of suitable foraging habitat for NSO by preserving like habitat of equal or greater habitat value on-site at a minimum ratio of 2:1 per acre impacted. Such habitat should be protected in perpetuity in the form of a conservation easement.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) and California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Page 4.3-21 of the draft EIR discusses the Project's potential impacts to California red-legged frog (CRLF) and foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF). The draft EIR states that the ephemeral drainages, the man-made concrete-cistern, and the existing reservoir could support these species. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 states that a) construction will occur during the dry season, approximately April 16 to October 15, and b) that water drafting will occur in suitable habitat (for dust abatement). First, CDFW typically considers the dry season to be from June 15 to October 15. Second, the draft EIR does not specify from where or when the water will be drafted. CDFW is concerned that water drafiing from suitable habitat, especially during the breeding season for CRLF (typically late November to late April) and FYLF (typically late March to late June), could significantly impact the species (e.g. desiccation of egg masses) if the species is present during water draffing activities. CDFW recommends that the drafi EIR incorporate a mitigation measure that states that a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys within 48 hours prior to the start of construction activities, of all suitable Mr. Brian Bordona February 4, 2019 Page 4

habitat for CRLF and FYLF, even if such habitat is dry at the time of the surveys. If FYLF or CRLF are round during the surveys, water draffing should not occur until a qualified biologist has determined that such activities no longer have the potential to adversely impact the species. If take or other adverse impacts to FYLF cannot be avoided during Project activities or over the life of the Project, a CESA permit must be obtained (pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2080 et seq.).

Invasive species are a major threat to FYLF, CRLF, western pond turtles, and several other native aquatic species. The draff EIR states that American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) were observed on-site during surveys. Bullfrogs can have a significant adverse effect on the environment because of the species ability to disperse long distances, feed on native wildlife, reproduce at a high rate, and outcompete native species for resources. CDFW recommends that the draft EIR include mitigation measures to eradicate bullfrogs From the property. CDFW also recommends that the Project proponent work with the neighboring landowner to remove any bullfrogs from the reservoir.

Special-Status Plants The Biological Resources section, page 4.3-19, discusses the Project's potential impacts to special-status plants. The draff EIR states that while no special-status plants were observed during surveys conducted on the Project site in 2015, the Project site does contain suitable habitat for 16 special-status plant species.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 states, "A pre-construction survey shall be conducted prior to the start of construction to identify potentially occurring populations or special-status plant species." CDFW recommends that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 be revised to specify that surveys will be conducted by a qualified botanist following the updated CDFW survey protocol titled, Protocol for Surveying and Evajuating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities, dated March 20, 2018. The survey protocol can be found here: https://nrm.dfq.ca.qov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=18959&inline. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 states, "Should special-status plant populations be identified on the property, the County and CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted as appropriate to determine the appropriate course of action prior to construction. However, the next bulleted measure contradicts this statement by stating, "Should special-status plant species be observed during the pre- construction survey, populations shall be avoided with no less than a 25-foot buffer..." To provide clarity, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 should be revised by removing the last sentence in the first bullet. A 25-foot buffer is generally insufficient; CDFW recommends that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 be revised to state that buffer distances will be developed in the field by a qualified botanist, with approval by CDFW prior to scheduled activities.

Nesting Migratory Birds Mitigation 4.3-2 states that a pre-construction nesting bird survey will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to start of ground disturbing activities. CDFW recommends revising Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 to include that survey@ will be conducted by a qualified biologist and that surveys will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to ground disturbing activities to significantly reduce the potential for a bird/raptor to begin nesting on-site between the time of the survey and the start of ground disturbing activities. Mr. Brian Bordona February 4, 2019 Page 5

Oak Woodland and Impacts to Native Vegetation As described in the Biological Resources section on page 4.3-24, approximately O. 17 acres of oak woodland would be directly impacted by Project implementation. Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 requires the Project to mitigate at a ratio of 2:1 for acres impacted. Removal of old-growth oak trees (native oak trees that are greater than 15 inches in diameter) is a significant impact. Old- growth oaks provide food and shelter for a variety of native species. And because oak trees have slow growth rates, it would take many years for planted oaks to get to a size that could provide the same ecological benefits that old-growth oaks provide. Due to this, the proposed mitigation ratio of 2:1 is inadequate. CDFW recommends preserving the remaining Mixed Oak Alliance (approximately O.64 acres; which is a ratio slightly less than a 5:1) on the property in the form of a conservation easement. An off-site mitigation ratio may be higher. CDFW is available to work with the applicant to develop a mitigation plan that reduces impacts to less- than-significant.

Roosting Bats The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), prepared by Analytical Environmental Services, dated March 2018, states that, "Potential bat roosting habitat was surveyed by walking transects through the forested habitats, searching for any cave analogs (hollowed trees or abandoned buildings), cavities, and exfoliating bark sheets." Furthermore, the Project site is potentially suitable habitat for two special-status bat species: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendit). The BRA does not detail whether potentially suitable bat roosting habitat was discovered during surveys and the draff EIR does not prop.ose any mitigation measures to prevent adverse impacts to roosting bats. Because the Project will remove approximately O. 17 acres of Mixed Oak Alliance and approximately 3.94 acres of Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Alliance, CDFW is concerned that the Project could have a potentially significant impact on roosting bats and therefore recommends that the draff EIR include the following mitigation measure to prevent impacts to roosting bats:

A qualified bat expert shall conduct a Bat Habitat Assessment of all trees proposed for removal at least 30 days prior to the start of construction to determine if any trees proposed for removal contain suitable bat roosting habitat (e.g. cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark). If the qualified bat expert identifies any trees proposed for removal containing suitable bat roosting habitat, the Project proponent shall assume presence of roosting bats and all trees proposed for removal containing suitable bat roosting habitat, as determined by the qualified bat expert, shall be removed using the following two-day phased removal method during the below specified seasonal periods of bat activity, to avoid impacting roosting bats:

All trees shall be removed during seasonal periods of bat activity: Prior to maternity season - from approximately March 1 (or when night temperatures are above 45oF and when rains have ceased) through April 45 (when females begin to give birth to young); and prior to winter torpor - from September 1 (when young bats are self-sufficiently volant) until about October 45 (before night temperatures fall below 45oF and rains begin)." Mr. Brian Bordona February 4, 2019 Page 6

Please also note that Fish and Game Code affords protection to all bats via Code sections 2000, 3007, and 4150. Bats are considered non-game mammals and therefore a project cannot cause take of any bats without a permit.

Wildlife Movement and Fencing The draft EIR discusses that new wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed around proposed vineyard blocks and in certain areas tied into existing fencing, though, there are no details on the proposed wildlife exclusion fencing. Ideal wildlife exclusion fencing (or deer fencing) is at least 7 to 8 feet high, woven wire fencing with large enough caging that allows smaller wildlife to pass through unharmed, but keeps larger wildlife (e.g. deer, bears) out. The Erosion Control Plan (ECP) should specify that exit gates will be constructed at the corners of all vineyard blocks, in the event large wildlife becomes entrapped in vineyard blocks. Barbed wire should never be used For wildfire exclusion Fencing because wildfire can get entangled in such material and suffer serious harm, potentially resulting in mortality.

Cumulative Impacts Section 6 of the draft EIR discusses the Project's potential cumulative impacts. Table 6-1 lists all the vineyard development projects between 'l 993 and 2018 within a three-mile radius of the Project site. Table 6-2 lists all the approved/pending vineyard development projects within a three-mile radius of the Project site. In the past 25 years, approximately 1,270 acres of land within three miles of the Project site have been developed to vineyard, and 99.4 acres of land within a three-mile radius of the Project site have been approved/are pending approval to be developed to vineyard. Table 6-1 does not include any land developed to vineyard on slopes less than 5% because Napa County does not require an ECP For vineyard development on slopes less than 5%. The draft EIR also states that taking the average acreage of land developed to vineyard each year within a three-mile radius of the Project site, approximately 488 acres of land within a three-mile radius of the Project site will be developed to vineyard under an ECP over the next 10 years. As 1,270 acres of land, not including slopes less than 5%, have been developed in the past 25 years, CDFW is concerned that the removal of suitable habitat for native and/or special-status species and fencing that restricts movement of larger native wildlife (e.g. bear, deer, mountain lion) is significant. The draff EIR should include the Project's potentially cumulative impacts within the greater Angwin area and within Napa County to include both slope and non-sloped vineyards.

Erosion Control Devices Erosion control devices can have a direct impact on wildlife (e.g. reptiles and amphibians). CDFW has documented several cases of wildlife becoming entangled in erosion control devices containing plastic monofilament (e.g. typical straw wattles). Appendix D of the draft EIR outlines the Project's ECP. The ECP for the Project should specify that no erosion control devices containing plastic monofilament will be used for the Project. All erosion control devices should be composed of a biodegradable material (e.g. coir logs, coconut fiber blanket).

Environmental Data CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database that may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. [Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)]. Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Mr. Brian Bordona February 4, 2019 Page 7

Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and notify Mr. Garrett Allen, Environmental Scientist, at qarrett.allen(a),wildliTe.ca.qov or (707) 428-2076. The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.qov/Data/CNDDB/Submittinq-Data#44524420-pdf-field-survey-form. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.qov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft EIR for the proposed Project and is available to meet with you to further discuss our concerns. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Allen at (707) 428-2076 or qarrett.allen(Qwildlife.ca.qov; or Ms. Karen Weiss, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 428-2090 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Gregg Erickson Regional Manager Bay Delta Region From: Doug Wilson To: Purvis, Kyra Subject: Heiser project EIR comment Date: Monday, January 21, 2019 9:14:40 PM

Hello Kyra, I wanted to register my concern about the Heiser project. Issues include drainage into Bell Canyon Reservoir. Known failures have occurred above Bell Canyon from vineyard development including Viader Vineyards, resulting in reservoir contamination. Erosion control mitigations are not enforceable, putting City of St Helena residents at risk. Nitrification of surface water and runoff from site cannot be mitigated.

Heiser would impact remaining wildlife corridors, is immediately adjacent to preserved lands and would negatively impact remnant forest. It seems the EIR fails to evaluate the impact of increased workers needing to commute. It should look at the average energy consumption and climate impact of worker’s and visitor’s travel to the project over time. Given housing costs and availability, current data is likely to worsen over time. Likewise traffic will likely worsen as this type of project continues to be approved requiring more and more workers to commute long distances from their homes.

It claims protected bat species will only be impacted if they are nesting in the trees that will be removed. They don't mention the long term effects of decreasing habitat, nor the pesticide that will be applied to the vines. Some studies estimate that we currently have only 10% of the insect population we used to have. This is consistent with my lifetime experience in windshield splatter. Many feel that insecticides/pesticides are largely responsible. More crops mean more pesticides, unless the project were mitigated with an organic-only conservation easement. More pesticides mean less insects and less bats.

This draft acknowledges that the benefits of a mature, old growth forest come on a scale of 150 years. however, it then evaluates the cumulative impact of the growth of many small timber conversions on a scale of 10 years. It should evaluate the impact of the current rate of growth on a 150 year time scale.

Thank you, Doug From: Connie Wilson To: Purvis, Kyra Subject: Heiser West Lane Project Date: Sunday, February 03, 2019 2:46:40 PM

Dear Ms. Purvis,

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heiser West Lane Project.

I am a third generation St. Helenan who cannot be silent any longer concerning the destruction of our hillsides for vineyard development. Napa County should put a moratorium on all hillside and mountaintop vineyards that destroy our forests and wildlife and contribute to degradation of our watersheds.

I recently flew over the Valley in a private plane to view the new vineyards being planted. It doesn’t take a scientist to see the widespread forest destruction, especially on the eastern hills, for vineyard development. In my lifetime I have never seen such rampant destruction as in the last few years and I am extremely alarmed that the County of Napa continues to allow this. We citizens know that most of the Valley floor has been planted out, but are horrified that you are allowing this to move to our mountaintops and hillsides.

The EIR for Heiser is full of “scientific” absurdities, such as the following statement: “Removal of vegetation by this project will not significantly reduce the available foraging, nesting and habitat for wildlife in the area because wildlife species present in the area can move into the nearby forest habitat that contains the same habitat types found on the property.” What an embarrassing assessment of wildlife management! Let’s keep those animals moving right along to the adjacent forest until the next developer comes by. With the recent destructive fires in our area, wildlife is under severe stress. Adding vineyards and destroying more of their habitat is just another blow.

Bell Canyon Reservoir serves St. Helena for drinking water, and this source cannot be compromised by allowing vineyard development that can and will contribute to its degradation. Why should one person be allowed to destroy forest and wildlife habitat and adjacent watershed for a vanity vineyard?

I work for a small family-owned winery on Spring Mountain, and the owners are conscientious stewards of the land. These new developers are not from our county, do not care what happens to our watersheds and don’t have a stake in maintaining the beauty of Napa Valley’s forests and wildlife. There has to come a time when Napa County says “no more” to the degradation of our landscape. You must take a stand for the citizens who live and work and raise their families here. We want to keep our hillsides free of vineyard development, and we ask that you listen to us.

Respectfully yours,

Connie Wilson 1658 Scott Street St. Helena, CA 94574 From: Elaine de Man To: Purvis, Kyra; Planning Subject: Comments on Heiser-West Lane Draft EIR Date: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:36:58 AM Attachments: Comments on the Heiser-West Lane Draft EIR.pdf Comments Attachment A.pdf

To: Kyra Purvis, Planner II, Napa County, CA

From: Elaine de Man, St. Helena, CA

Date: September 4, 2019

Subject: Heiser Draft EIR, Application P15-00389

Dear Ms. Purvis,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Heiser West Lane ECP.

I am a biologist and a California Naturalist, certified by the University of California, and have lived in the Napa Valley for 24 years. My husband and I own 9+ acres of undeveloped land in Angwin which I use for personal wildlife studies.

After carefully reviewing the documentation regarding the proposed Heiser West Lane Vineyard Project, I have a number of serious concerns and respectfully request you select the No Project Alternative.

Among other things, I think the county should take note that the company which prepared this EIR, Analytical Environmental Services, is the same organization that prepared the EIR for the Davis-Friesen Vineyard Project, which is the subject of a lawsuit being brought against California Department of Forestry and Frost Fire Vineyards by the Center for Biological Diversity for failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Forest Practice Act.

As a resident in St. Helena, I believe the Bell Canyon Watershed and Reservoir could be seriously compromised by this project and think protecting this valuable water supply should be of utmost importance. The cumulative effects of deforestation and vineyardization of the lands in and around the watershed, which serves the City of St. Helena, St. Helena Hospital, and the residents of Deer Park has the potential to compromise the quality and quantity of water flowing into it, particularly since Napa County still allows the use of glyphosates, a known carcinogen. The Hospital, not mentioned anywhere in this EIR draws 100% of its water from wells that are in the upper reaches of the watershed, quite close to the project described. The hospital serves itself and some 200 additional water customers in Deer Park.

As a Biologist and California Certified Naturalist, I have additional concerns over the adequacy of the EIR in identifying all potential impacts of the projects, the adequacy of the proposed mitigations for the identified impacts, and the lack of provisions for inspection and enforcement.

Twelve Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Listed The Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Draft EIR includes 12 “potentially significant” environmental impacts in the areas of:

· Air Quality (2)

· Biological Resources (3)

· Cultural Resources (3)

· Greenhouse Gas Emissions (1) (Mitigation measures proposed, even though impact is listed as “less than significant.” )

· Hazardous Materials (2)

· Noise (1)

The Draft EIR proposes mitigation measures for each of these that are supposed to render all of these impacts as “less than significant,” provided that the developer and its contractors voluntarily adhere to them. Unfortunately, too many vineyard owners in the Napa Valley have shown a willing disregard for the rules and regulations. Nor is it clear that Napa County has the necessary resources to inspect an ever-growing number of projects frequently enough to make sure they are all in compliance before, during, and after the completion of the project.

Bremmer Family Vineyards is a case in point. In the words of a spokesperson for Bremmer, “It’s common practice [to make in-field changes],” says Greenwood-Meinert, who is also representing Ryan Waugh as he fights a legal challenge to The Caves. “Many projects do this. You have the original plan, and then there is the plan you end up with.”

“Many projects do this.” How many? Unfortunately, we don’t know if and when a project decides to break the rules until there is a vineyard collapse such as the most recent one on Yount Mill Road or the 2012 landslide into Burton Creek.

Granted, the Yount Mill Road debacle was caused by a code violation. But the point is that code violations do occur, often with disastrous results. In this case, the mud and debris could eventually be cleared from the road. But such an occurrence in the watershed, where mud and debris could not be so easily cleared away could have far more long reaching and devastating effects.

Therefore, if there are any mitigations suggested (without even addressing the fact that the Draft EIR may not list all the potential impacts and that suggested mitigations may be insufficient) the county must ensure it has the resources to perform adequate and ongoing inspections and impose stiff fines on those who do not follow the prescribed plan. Otherwise, lack of adequate enforcement and penalties will create an open invitation to violations.

If this requires hiring independent monitors or takes more county staff time, those expenses should be borne by the applicant and NOT the County of Napa, as this is a commercial enterprise being undertaken to make money for the applicant.

Excessive Tree Canopy Removal and Climate Change Proposed retention of 72% of the tree canopy is not adequate. According to the Fifth Assessment Report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “after more than a century and a half of industrialization, deforestation, and large scale agriculture, quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen to record levels not seen in three million years.”

And while the burning of fossil fuels is mostly responsible for the most abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, mature trees and the soil they grow in are a ready-made mitigation that we need to take advantage of whenever possible, given the current crisis. The role that mature trees and the mycorrhizal fungi in the soil beneath them play in carbon sequestration and watershed protections can no longer be ignored. Nor can the fact that trees and soil are playing an important role right now, as opposed to some future, and less effective, potential of vineyards some years down the road.

In addition the carbon load of tractor operations, ATV’s, and grape trucks, consistent with ongoing vineyard operations, have not been taken into account in this EIR. And while this might seem to be a relatively small project, the cumulative impacts of many projects such as this are significant.

In any case, consideration of this project should be put on hold until the county has adopted its new ordinance concerning tree canopy retention and stream buffer zones. One of the recommendations on the table and supported by a vast number of residents and environmental organizations, is 90% canopy retention.

Impacts on Bell Canyon Reservoir and Ground Water The Draft EIR also ignores other climate change realities. For example, the basis for average annual precipitation used in this study was for the years between 1940 and 2015 (Page 4.8-5). However, climate change events have led to increased temperatures and extended droughts in more recent years and will most likely get worse going forward. Therefore, the average annual precipitation used to measure potential impacts on groundwater supplies in this study is highly inaccurate and most likely overly optimistic. A more accurate and realistic measure of annual precipitation would look at average rainfall over a more recent period and take into account any overall trends in average precipitation that could be attributed to climate change. As written, it appears that the Draft EIR has cherry-picked a range of dates to ascertain an average annual rainfall that suits its client’s objectives.

The Draft EIR also fails to address how groundwater retention will be impacted by the removal of trees on the site, both in normal years and during years of extended drought. Nor does it take into account the cumulative impacts of other vineyards drawing from the same undergroud nwater supply.

In terms of watershed protections, there is also concern regarding accidental spills and run-off.

The 2014 Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey acknowledges that, “Wineries can potentially impact Bell Canyon Reservoir water quality due to accidental spills of process wastewater and due to runoff of pesticides and sediment from vineyards.”

Consequently, the proposed herbicide use described in the EIR, most specifically glyphosate, a known carcinogen but still allowed in Napa County, is also of huge concern.

Again from the Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey: “Storm water runoff from wineries may be a source of sediment, salinity, and total organic carbon.”

After the recent storms, I had the opportunity to visit a number of recent (and some not-so-recent) vineyard projects up on Howell Mountain near the project site and saw first-hand how inadequate some of the various mitigation measures being used were in terms of storm water run-off and the potential impacts on water quality, even on vineyards that were on level ground.

Unfortunately, inspections of these projects, before, during, and after completion to make sure that projects are following the conditions allowed by their permit and that mitigation measures are not only place, but are working! Bremer Family Vineyards, in Deer Park, again, is a case in point. It wasn’t until the state got involved (at the insistence of a local citizen) that the county responded at all to Bremer’s egregious violations. So until we know that the county has the resources and is committed to inspecting these projects (and on a timely basis) and enforcing its own rules, we not be able to rely on them to do all that is necessary to protect the watershed.

Another thing that doesn’t seem to be adequately addressed is the possible impact all this soil disturbance might have on the levels of manganese in our water. According to the Watershed Sanitary Study, “the only constituent present in the raw water that consistently requires additional treatment is manganese.” Though not mentioned in the study, this might be the result of the runoff from the serpentine soils in the area, characterized by high concentrations of manganese, which could be exacerbated anytime the soil is disturbed, as it will be when ripping the soil for this project and during the course of ongoing vineyard operations.

What should also be of concern is naturally occurring asbestos particles that are common in serpentine rock. According to a paper published by the University of California, Facts About Serpentine Rock and Soil Containing Asbestos in California, “Serpentine soils should be undisturbed and stabilized to reduce exposing or releasing [asbestos] fibers into the environment. As long as fibers remain bound in rock or soil, they pose very little health threat.” And yet there is no mention of this in the analysis or mitigations for air quality.

Fungicide Use The overall health of the existing soil in the project area, its importance to the surrounding forest, and its ability to sequester atmospheric carbon sequestration were not considered in the draft EIR.

Soil contains more carbon than the plants and atmosphere combined. And while much scientific research has been done on how plants, free-living microbial decomposers, and soil minerals affect this pool of carbon, it is recently coming to light in the scientific community the important role mycorrhizal fungi play in carbon sequestration and in maintaining this pool of carbon in the ground. Indeed, in some ecosystems it is the main pathway by which living carbon enters the soil carbon pool.

Given the current climate crisis, the overwhelming importance and value of the vast underground web created by symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in sequestering carbon and maintaining a nutritional and interconnected balance for broad distances in the forest floor should always be considered when examining the impacts of a forest to vineyard conversion.

Not only does soil contain more carbon than the plants and atmosphere combined, we are now learning that the vast mycelium web created by this fungus reinvests that carbon into trees and plants as needed. And not just carbon, either. They also transfer other nutrients between plants when needed and are essential to the health of the entire ecosystem. This might explain why so many trees can withstand the devastating impacts of forest fires!

When you disrupt this intricate and essential web by tearing out trees and “ripping” the soil you are destroying this very essential web that is essential to keeping the adjacent forest and woodlands healthy and able to withstand and possibly slow down an encroaching wildfire. Consequently, the impacts of deforestation are felt far beyond the actual surface perimeter of the destruction. And when you follow that with the herbicide and fungicide applications used in a vineyard setting, the destruction can be irreparable.

So, any examination of trees vs vineyards in terms of climate change and forest fires is incomplete unless you also look at the carbon sequestration capacity of the soil and the health of the mycorrhizal web that sustains it and the potential impacts of fungicide use during ongoing vineyard operations. None of that was included in this Draft EIR.

Inadequate Biological Surveys At the most basic level, the Draft EIR does NOT provide an accurate account of the environmental setting of the parcel being converted to vineyard AND the surrounding forest. Among other things, according to the EIR, there was no preconstruction survey conducted to identify potentially occurring special status plant species. The EIR also lacks the facts and analysis necessary for decision makers to accurately assess potential impacts and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

Aerial photographs are not a reliable, or even effective, way to track wildlife corridors, which is what the EIR relied upon….. unless you are looking for a corridor for a herd of buffalo in the open plains. Corridors used by deer, for example, and apex predators, such as mountain lions, will not show up in an aerial photograph. Consequently, there is no basis for the conclusion that there are no wildlife corridors within the project area.

Additionally, the occasional “meandering” surveys performed looking for scat and other evidence of wildlife are not an effective way to catalogue the plants and other wildlife that will be impacted. Nor was any attempt made to survey nocturnal birds and mammals that might also be impacted by the such as the western screech owl, striped skunk, and gray fox, all of which have been seen nearby in the same Douglas Fir/Ponderosa Pine habitat which comprises the majority of the acreage being converted to vineyard by this project. And, indeed, none were seen by the “research” team collecting data for the Draft EIR.

How many other animals, all of which play a role in maintaining the rich biodiversity Napa County is known for, were overlooked by the inadequate techniques used in this survey?

The owls and foxes, which nest in trees during the day, will, indeed, be impacted by tree removal, though the Draft EIR doesn’t even acknowledge their existence because inadequate techniques were used to perform the initial biological survey.

Other species known to inhabit similar habitats nearby, but not seen by the researchers preparing the EIR include bob cats, slender salamanders, California giant salamander, northern flickers, Columbian black-tailed deer, coyotes, western gray squirrels, and more. Mountain lions were not spotted or included in the survey, though there is no doubt that this area is part of their natural range. Nor were black bears mentioned in the EIR, but they too are known to inhabit the area.

A much more accurate wildlife survey could have been conducted by using a couple of well-placed wildlife cameras. That the biological survey did not use wildlife cameras to document wildlife on the property is a major short-coming and makes one wonder how committed they were to actually finding and documenting wildlife currently inhabiting or using the subject area.

The report also makes the absurd conclusion that “removal of vegetation by this project will not significantly reduce the available foraging, nesting and habitat for wildlife in the area because wildlife species present in the area can move into the nearby forest habitat that contains the same habitat types found on the property.” This is a shocking statement, especially from an organization hired to assess biological impacts. It totally ignores and overlooks the most basic reality of known animal behavior and such factors as territory, home range, or carrying capacity of the adjacent land they expect the displaced wildlife to move into. It’s like saying, “It’s OK for me to plow down your house, because you can move into your neighbor’s house with them. They won’t mind.”

It doesn’t work that way. When you destroy an animal’s habitat, you have to acknowledge and accept that it may not have anywhere to go because all of the available places are already taken. That’s how nature works.

Given the inadequacy of the biological survey conducted for this EIR, it is incorrect to say there will be no significant impacts to wildlife, with or without planned mitigation measures mentioned.

Inadequate Mitigation Measures for Biological Impacts The mitigation measures offered in the EIR rely on voluntary compliance on the part of the owner or developer and their employees and hired contractos. Unfortunately, past experience with other vineyards and wineries, has shown that this is not adequate, note to mention the violations we don’t know about or ever will.

For example, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 CRLF and FYLF suggest that a “qualified biologist” conduct an environmental training session for the property owner and work personnel prior to development to help them identify species of special interest. But all that is required is that they attend the training and get a certificate which is “kept on file.” Unfortunately, too many vineyard owners have shown that self-policing does not work, particularly when it might increase costs or cut into profits. It seems highly unlikely that a bull dozer operator is going to stop his work because he thinks what he’s seeing might be an endangered California red-legged frog.

Given the inadequacy of the report on biological impacts, and its potential impacts on the rich biodiversity of Napa County (Attachment A), based on this EIR the project should not be allowed to go forward.

Tree Canopy and Watershed Ordinance The County is currently in the process of creating a new ordinance that will offer greater protections to trees, shrub lands, streams, wetlands, municipal reservoirs, and watersheds. With such an ordinance so close at hand, at the very least, it would make sense to wait on approval of any new projects until we can be assured they will be in compliance with the new rules and considerations.

For all these reasons and more, I respectfully request that the Planning Department select the No Project Alternative.

Thank-you,

Elaine de Man To: Kyra Purvis, Planner II, Napa County, CA

From: Elaine de Man, St. Helena, CA

Date: September 4, 2019

Subject: Heiser Draft EIR, Application P15-00389

Dear Ms. Purvis,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Heiser West Lane ECP.

I am a biologist and a California Naturalist, certified by the University of California, and have lived in the Napa Valley for 24 years. My husband and I own 9+ acres of undeveloped land in Angwin which I use for personal wildlife studies.

After carefully reviewing the documentation regarding the proposed Heiser West Lane Vineyard Project, I have a number of serious concerns and respectfully request you select the No Project Alternative.

Among other things, I think the county should take note that the company which prepared this EIR, Analytical Environmental Services, is the same organization that prepared the EIR for the Davis-Friesen Vineyard Project, which is the subject of a lawsuit being brought against California Department of Forestry and Frost Fire Vineyards by the Center for Biological Diversity for failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Forest Practice Act.

As a resident in St. Helena, I believe the Bell Canyon Watershed and Reservoir could be seriously compromised by this project and think protecting this valuable water supply should be of utmost importance. The cumulative effects of deforestation and vineyardization of the lands in and around the watershed, which serves the City of St. Helena, St. Helena Hospital, and the residents of Deer Park has the potential to compromise the quality and quantity of water flowing into it, particularly since Napa County still allows the use of glyphosates, a known carcinogen. The Hospital, not mentioned anywhere in this EIR draws 100% of its water from wells that are in the upper reaches of the watershed, quite close to the project described. The hospital serves itself and some 200 additional water customers in Deer Park.

As a Biologist and California Certified Naturalist, I have additional concerns over the adequacy of the EIR in identifying all potential impacts of the projects, the adequacy of the proposed mitigations for the identified impacts, and the lack of provisions for inspection and enforcement.

Twelve Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Listed The Heiser-West Lane Vineyard Draft EIR includes 12 “potentially significant” environmental impacts in the areas of:

 Air Quality (2)  Biological Resources (3)  Cultural Resources (3)  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (1) (Mitigation measures proposed, even though impact is listed as “less than significant.” )  Hazardous Materials (2)  Noise (1)

The Draft EIR proposes mitigation measures for each of these that are supposed to render all of these impacts as “less than significant,” provided that the developer and its contractors voluntarily adhere to them. Unfortunately, too many vineyard owners in the Napa Valley have shown a willing disregard for the rules and regulations. Nor is it clear that Napa County has the necessary resources to inspect an ever-growing number of projects frequently enough to make sure they are all in compliance before, during, and after the completion of the project.

Bremmer Family Vineyards is a case in point. In the words of a spokesperson for Bremmer, “It’s common practice [to make in-field changes],” says Greenwood-Meinert, who is also representing Ryan Waugh as he fights a legal challenge to The Caves. “Many projects do this. You have the original plan, and then there is the plan you end up with.”

“Many projects do this.” How many? Unfortunately, we don’t know if and when a project decides to break the rules until there is a vineyard collapse such as the most recent one on Yount Mill Road or the 2012 landslide into Burton Creek.

Granted, the Yount Mill Road debacle was caused by a code violation. But the point is that code violations do occur, often with disastrous results. In this case, the mud and debris could eventually be cleared from the road. But such an occurrence in the watershed, where mud and debris could not be so easily cleared away could have far more long reaching and devastating effects.

Therefore, if there are any mitigations suggested (without even addressing the fact that the Draft EIR may not list all the potential impacts and that suggested mitigations may be insufficient) the county must ensure it has the resources to perform adequate and ongoing inspections and impose stiff fines on those who do not follow the prescribed plan. Otherwise, lack of adequate enforcement and penalties will create an open invitation to violations. If this requires hiring independent monitors or takes more county staff time, those expenses should be borne by the applicant and NOT the County of Napa, as this is a commercial enterprise being undertaken to make money for the applicant.

Excessive Tree Canopy Removal and Climate Change

Proposed retention of 72% of the tree canopy is not adequate. According to the Fifth Assessment Report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “after more than a century and a half of industrialization, deforestation, and large scale agriculture, quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen to record levels not seen in three million years.”

And while the burning of fossil fuels is mostly responsible for the most abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, mature trees and the soil they grow in are a ready-made mitigation that we need to take advantage of whenever possible, given the current crisis. The role that mature trees and the mycorrhizal fungi in the soil beneath them play in carbon sequestration and watershed protections can no longer be ignored. Nor can the fact that trees and soil are playing an important role right now, as opposed to some future, and less effective, potential of vineyards some years down the road.

In addition the carbon load of tractor operations, ATV’s, and grape trucks, consistent with ongoing vineyard operations, have not been taken into account in this EIR. And while this might seem to be a relatively small project, the cumulative impacts of many projects such as this are significant.

In any case, consideration of this project should be put on hold until the county has adopted its new ordinance concerning tree canopy retention and stream buffer zones. One of the recommendations on the table and supported by a vast number of residents and environmental organizations, is 90% canopy retention.

Impacts on Bell Canyon Reservoir and Ground Water

The Draft EIR also ignores other climate change realities. For example, the basis for average annual precipitation used in this study was for the years between 1940 and 2015 (Page 4.8-5). However, climate change events have led to increased temperatures and extended droughts in more recent years and will most likely get worse going forward. Therefore, the average annual precipitation used to measure potential impacts on groundwater supplies in this study is highly inaccurate and most likely overly optimistic. A more accurate and realistic measure of annual precipitation would look at average rainfall over a more recent period and take into account any overall trends in average precipitation that could be attributed to climate change. As written, it appears that the Draft EIR has cherry-picked a range of dates to ascertain an average annual rainfall that suits its client’s objectives.

The Draft EIR also fails to address how groundwater retention will be impacted by the removal of trees on the site, both in normal years and during years of extended drought. Nor does it take into account the cumulative impacts of other vineyards drawing from the same undergroud nwater supply.

In terms of watershed protections, there is also concern regarding accidental spills and run-off.

The 2014 Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey acknowledges that, “Wineries can potentially impact Bell Canyon Reservoir water quality due to accidental spills of process wastewater and due to runoff of pesticides and sediment from vineyards.”

Consequently, the proposed herbicide use described in the EIR, most specifically glyphosate, a known carcinogen but still allowed in Napa County, is also of huge concern.

Again from the Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey: “Storm water runoff from wineries may be a source of sediment, salinity, and total organic carbon.”

After the recent storms, I had the opportunity to visit a number of recent (and some not-so- recent) vineyard projects up on Howell Mountain near the project site and saw first-hand how inadequate some of the various mitigation measures being used were in terms of storm water run-off and the potential impacts on water quality, even on vineyards that were on level ground.

Unfortunately, inspections of these projects, before, during, and after completion to make sure that projects are following the conditions allowed by their permit and that mitigation measures are not only place, but are working! Bremer Family Vineyards, in Deer Park, again, is a case in point. It wasn’t until the state got involved (at the insistence of a local citizen) that the county responded at all to Bremer’s egregious violations. So until we know that the county has the resources and is committed to inspecting these projects (and on a timely basis) and enforcing its own rules, we not be able to rely on them to do all that is necessary to protect the watershed.

Another thing that doesn’t seem to be adequately addressed is the possible impact all this soil disturbance might have on the levels of manganese in our water. According to the Watershed Sanitary Study, “the only constituent present in the raw water that consistently requires additional treatment is manganese.” Though not mentioned in the study, this might be the result of the runoff from the serpentine soils in the area, characterized by high concentrations of manganese, which could be exacerbated anytime the soil is disturbed, as it will be when ripping the soil for this project and during the course of ongoing vineyard operations.

What should also be of concern is naturally occurring asbestos particles that are common in serpentine rock. According to a paper published by the University of California, Facts About Serpentine Rock and Soil Containing Asbestos in California, “Serpentine soils should be undisturbed and stabilized to reduce exposing or releasing [asbestos] fibers into the environment. As long as fibers remain bound in rock or soil, they pose very little health threat.” And yet there is no mention of this in the analysis or mitigations for air quality.

Fungicide Use

The overall health of the existing soil in the project area, its importance to the surrounding forest, and its ability to sequester atmospheric carbon sequestration were not considered in the draft EIR.

Soil contains more carbon than the plants and atmosphere combined. And while much scientific research has been done on how plants, free-living microbial decomposers, and soil minerals affect this pool of carbon, it is recently coming to light in the scientific community the important role mycorrhizal fungi play in carbon sequestration and in maintaining this pool of carbon in the ground. Indeed, in some ecosystems it is the main pathway by which living carbon enters the soil carbon pool.

Given the current climate crisis, the overwhelming importance and value of the vast underground web created by symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in sequestering carbon and maintaining a nutritional and interconnected balance for broad distances in the forest floor should always be considered when examining the impacts of a forest to vineyard conversion.

Not only does soil contain more carbon than the plants and atmosphere combined, we are now learning that the vast mycelium web created by this fungus reinvests that carbon into trees and plants as needed. And not just carbon, either. They also transfer other nutrients between plants when needed and are essential to the health of the entire ecosystem. This might explain why so many trees can withstand the devastating impacts of forest fires!

When you disrupt this intricate and essential web by tearing out trees and “ripping” the soil you are destroying this very essential web that is essential to keeping the adjacent forest and woodlands healthy and able to withstand and possibly slow down an encroaching wildfire. Consequently, the impacts of deforestation are felt far beyond the actual surface perimeter of the destruction. And when you follow that with the herbicide and fungicide applications used in a vineyard setting, the destruction can be irreparable.

So, any examination of trees vs vineyards in terms of climate change and forest fires is incomplete unless you also look at the carbon sequestration capacity of the soil and the health of the mycorrhizal web that sustains it and the potential impacts of fungicide use during ongoing vineyard operations. None of that was included in this Draft EIR.

Inadequate Biological Surveys

At the most basic level, the Draft EIR does NOT provide an accurate account of the environmental setting of the parcel being converted to vineyard AND the surrounding forest. Among other things, according to the EIR, there was no preconstruction survey conducted to identify potentially occurring special status plant species. The EIR also lacks the facts and analysis necessary for decision makers to accurately assess potential impacts and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

Aerial photographs are not a reliable, or even effective, way to track wildlife corridors, which is what the EIR relied upon….. unless you are looking for a corridor for a herd of buffalo in the open plains. Corridors used by deer, for example, and apex predators, such as mountain lions, will not show up in an aerial photograph. Consequently, there is no basis for the conclusion that there are no wildlife corridors within the project area.

Additionally, the occasional “meandering” surveys performed looking for scat and other evidence of wildlife are not an effective way to catalogue the plants and other wildlife that will be impacted. Nor was any attempt made to survey nocturnal birds and mammals that might also be impacted by the such as the western screech owl, striped skunk, and gray fox, all of which have been seen nearby in the same Douglas Fir/Ponderosa Pine habitat which comprises the majority of the acreage being converted to vineyard by this project. And, indeed, none were seen by the “research” team collecting data for the Draft EIR.

How many other animals, all of which play a role in maintaining the rich biodiversity Napa County is known for, were overlooked by the inadequate techniques used in this survey?

The owls and foxes, which nest in trees during the day, will, indeed, be impacted by tree removal, though the Draft EIR doesn’t even acknowledge their existence because inadequate techniques were used to perform the initial biological survey.

Other species known to inhabit similar habitats nearby, but not seen by the researchers preparing the EIR include bob cats, slender salamanders, California giant salamander, northern flickers, Columbian black-tailed deer, coyotes, western gray squirrels, and more. Mountain lions were not spotted or included in the survey, though there is no doubt that this area is part of their natural range. Nor were black bears mentioned in the EIR, but they too are known to inhabit the area.

A much more accurate wildlife survey could have been conducted by using a couple of well- placed wildlife cameras. That the biological survey did not use wildlife cameras to document wildlife on the property is a major short-coming and makes one wonder how committed they were to actually finding and documenting wildlife currently inhabiting or using the subject area.

The report also makes the absurd conclusion that “removal of vegetation by this project will not significantly reduce the available foraging, nesting and habitat for wildlife in the area because wildlife species present in the area can move into the nearby forest habitat that contains the same habitat types found on the property.” This is a shocking statement, especially from an organization hired to assess biological impacts. It totally ignores and overlooks the most basic reality of known animal behavior and such factors as territory, home range, or carrying capacity of the adjacent land they expect the displaced wildlife to move into. It’s like saying, “It’s OK for me to plow down your house, because you can move into your neighbor’s house with them. They won’t mind.”

It doesn’t work that way. When you destroy an animal’s habitat, you have to acknowledge and accept that it may not have anywhere to go because all of the available places are already taken. That’s how nature works.

Given the inadequacy of the biological survey conducted for this EIR, it is incorrect to say there will be no significant impacts to wildlife, with or without planned mitigation measures mentioned.

Inadequate Mitigation Measures for Biological Impacts

The mitigation measures offered in the EIR rely on voluntary compliance on the part of the owner or developer and their employees and hired contractos. Unfortunately, past experience with other vineyards and wineries, has shown that this is not adequate, note to mention the violations we don’t know about or ever will.

For example, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 CRLF and FYLF suggest that a “qualified biologist” conduct an environmental training session for the property owner and work personnel prior to development to help them identify species of special interest. But all that is required is that they attend the training and get a certificate which is “kept on file.” Unfortunately, too many vineyard owners have shown that self-policing does not work, particularly when it might increase costs or cut into profits. It seems highly unlikely that a bull dozer operator is going to stop his work because he thinks what he’s seeing might be an endangered California red-legged frog.

Given the inadequacy of the report on biological impacts, and its potential impacts on the rich biodiversity of Napa County (Attachment A), based on the content of this EIR , the project should not be allowed to go forward.

Tree Canopy and Watershed Ordinance

The County is currently in the process of creating a new ordinance that will offer greater protections to trees, shrub lands, streams, wetlands, municipal reservoirs, and watersheds. With such an ordinance so close at hand, at the very least, it would make sense to wait on approval of any new projects until we can be assured they will be in compliance with the new rules and considerations.

For all these reasons and more, I respectfully request that the Planning Department select the No Project Alternative.

Thank-you,

Elaine de Man From: Bordona, Brian To: Purvis, Kyra Subject: FW: Comment Letter Heiser DEIR Date: Monday, February 04, 2019 1:19:24 PM Attachments: Heiser DEIR (Autosaved).docx

From: ruralangwin Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 1:12 PM To: Bordona, Brian Cc: Gregory, Ryan ; [email protected]; Morrison, David ; Tran, Minh Subject: Comment Letter Heiser DEIR

Hi Bryan,

Please confirm you have received and can open the attached Heiser DIER comment letter.

Snowing a bit in Angwin.

Thanks,

Kellie Anderson To: Kara Purvis, Planner II 1195 Third Street Napa CA 94559

From: Linda Falls Alliance 445 Lloyd lane Angwin CA 94508

January, 30, 2019

Subject: Comments Heiser Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Ms. Purvis,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment of the Heiser Draft Environmental Impact Report. As the lead Agency, Napa County is responsible for insuring the adequacy of this Draft Environmental Impact Report. The DEIR does not adequately describe project cumulative impacts, has incomplete project setting, and fails to adequately demonstrate feasibility of implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, the ‘no project’ alternative is dismissed without justification. Most troubling, the County of Napa Lacks staff qualified to review the adequacy of biological surveys including protocol level surveys for Northern Spotted Owl. Please accept our comments are as follows: Impacts to adjacent proximate conserved/protected lands

The DEIR fails to correctly identify proximate conserved and open space lands to the north and west. The project setting description is inadequate and fails to identify potentially affected permanently conserved lands, as a result, project impacts to Land Trust of Napa County, City of St. Helena and St. Helena Hospital conserved/preserved lands are not adequately analyzed. Please provide an accurate landscape level description of setting including proximity to Dunn Wildlake Ranch, Audubon Cheney, St. Helena Hospital lands including critical watershed headwaters supplying St. Helena Hospital and 200 residential water users, Bell Creek and City of St. Helena’s Bell Canyon Reservoir watersheds.

Figure 1Audubon Ceheny Preserve

1

Piecemealing of project

The project parcel is 20.55 acres. The existing developed vineyard is 4.2 acres. The proposed project foot print is 5.7 acres. There is a residence on property as well. The DEIR does not analyze the known, cumulative impacts of the proposed project vineyard acreage in conjunction with existing developed areas. The DEIR must analyze the known likely hood that the project parcel can legally accommodate a winery. The totality of all development reasonably known or anticipated to occur must be analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR provides insufficient discussion of prior natural vegetation clearing to analyze cumulative forest canopy loss. The DEIR does not address the reasonable likelihood that a winey will be constructed under current Napa County General Plan policy and zoning

Project application states steeper slopes than those reported in DEIR. Acreage in application is greater than that listed in DEIR https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/8777/Heiser---ECP-Application

What is the correct acreage proposed for clearing and vineyard development as the application and DEIR differ in this detail? What are the actual slopes of areas to be cleared? Will slopes be changed following project?

Recent vineyard developments on hill sides in Napa County have been in violation of permitted project scope. As built vineyard foot prints and acreages in some cases have differed from approved projects (Bremmer). Other vineyards have exceeded development parameters approved in ECPA, (Del Dotto). Erosion control structures have been documented to not be maintained (Abreu Las Posadas Rd. Pringle Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company). There is a pattern and practice of regulatory agencies failing to conduct milestone inspections of vineyard projects involving extensive tree clearing, grading, rock removal, and erosion control infrastructure development.

Given that no milestone inspections will be conducted by regulatory agencies (with the exception of winterization) during project construction, the DEIR fails to assure that mitigation measures offered in this project will be implemented (Foot print, slope, tree retention, sediment control and Best management Practices). In fact, the DEIR states that changes will be approved by Napa County. Given the actual final project details are unknown, discuss how the proposed mitigation measures are adequate to reduce impacts as concluded in this DEIR. Please provide evidence that mitigation measures will be implemented and limited to approve project scope given the prevalence of deviations from approved projects in Napa County vineyard developments.

Fails to address impacts of rock disposal at project site

During hillside vineyard development throughout Napa County and on Howell Mountain particularly, huge volumes of rock are generated during deep ripping. (Cakebread/Greenfield Rd, Patrick/Deer Park Rd, Las Posadas LLC/Las Posadas Rd, Bremmer/Deer Park). While this project specifically notes the need for rock disposal and proposes rock use as road base and as a landscape feature, in addition to use in rock lined ditches and attenuation basin development, there is no assurance provided that the rock spoils will not impact retained forest and habitat. The DEIR must provide a reasonable estimate of volume of rock spoils to be generated and specifically show the location of rock spoils disposal on site.

Rock spoils disposal on site constitute a largely ignored environmental impact. Resulting in reflected heat from rock piles, changes to forest floor canopy and impacts to water permeability, destruction of forest floor structure and small wildlife habitat. In addition, the quantity of loose soil that washes from rock spoils, particularly in the first rains, is an unmitigated source of sediment. As such the impacts from forest canopy removal, site contouring and deep ripping and rock generation have not been analyzed or mitigated in this DEIR.

2

THE DIER does not provide discussion evaluating suitability of site for vineyard success on North and East facing slopes

Existing 4.2 acre vineyard is located east of the residence in a depression prone to pooling of cold air. This vineyard location necessitates the use of a frost fan to move cold air to prevent damage to vines. The existing vineyard floor is farmed to maximize areas of bare soil that reflects heat as a strategy to reduce vine damage from frost. Site visits in January 2019, document wide herbicide strip sprays and limited permanent cover in vine rows. Current farming practices to protect vines from frost are in conflict with required 80-85% required floor cover as called for in DEIR.

The project proposes planting on north and east slopes after forest canopy removal. The success of vines to thrive without use of frost protection techniques including ‘clean floor’ strategies is in doubt. The DEIR must demonstrate feasibility of proposed mitigations for erosion. Based on proposed block locations and frost conditions at project site the retention of 80-85% cover is unlikely to be achieved. See cover page photograph Heiser Vineyard Project Initial Study for current vine row management practices.

5.3.1 Alternatives claims a 61 percent overall reduction in in the erosion form the property would occur with project development. This is in direct conflict with observable facts. The existing vineyard is eroding heavily, with visible sheet erosion and pooling mud visible, poor cover crop establishment and wide sprayed middles and boarders.

The DEIR conclusion that aesthetics impacts are not significant is unsupported

Reliance upon Napa County Viewshed Protection Ordinance 18.108 as an exemption from analysis of aesthetic impacts is inappropriate as the project is not limited to agricultural road construction but includes the of removal of highly visible knoll top forest canopy. No analysis of impacts to views from Silverado Trail, a designated scenic highway, have been included. The ‘No Aesthetic Impact’ conclusion is inaccurate. The use of the term ‘scenic vista’ in the DEIR is undefined and visitors to the area of West Lane, White Cottage Rd. and the Silverado Trail and those visiting the Dunn Wildlake Ranch would experience negative changes in visual character and loss of a forested ridge line. The DEIR conclusion of no aesthetic impact is unsupported and the DEIR must analyze this impact. See page 13 project application noting visibility of project to nearby residences.

Traffic and Transportation impacts are a known cumulative impact the DEIR must address

The DEIR must discuss the projects impacts to traffic and provide factual information on cumulative impacts. No analysis of cumulative traffic impacts to arterial roads (White Cottage, Howell Mountain, and Deer Park Rd.) are provided. The reliance of most vineyards in the Angwin and Up Valley areas on vineyard management companies for farming duties results in massive movement of equipment, materials and workers, with spraying, harvest and frost protection activities occurring in the night hours. Caravans of worker vehicles and transportation of farming equipment to and from vineyards in the area results in 24 hour a day traffic and safety issues. Small roadways such as West Lane, with no left turn lane are specifically the roadways most impacted by new vineyard development and traffic impacts must be analyzed.

Forest Resource loss from project are dismissed

The DEIR inaccurately relies on selective General Plan polices to justify forest resource destruction thru conversion to vineyard. Multiple General Plan Polices however, support forest conservation, habitat retention, plant and animal species conservation and connectivity for wildlife. Discussions of this project’s conflict with General Plan policies must be included. As an example the project is in conflict with AG/LU18. Additionally, the Impacts to forest resources form project are not limited to the project foot print. Project impacts to adjacent retained forested areas both on and off project parcel must be addressed. Impacts from edge effect on wildlife, wind throw, and forest floor degradation from forest floor being utilized as a bio swale for nutrient and pesticide run off are not analyzed. 3

What are cumulative impacts of edge effect to forest canopy from past and proposed vineyard conversion both legal and known illegal conversions? (Davis, Abreu, Bremer, Las Posadas LLC, Cliff Family, Howell Mountain CRU, Heiser, Heitz, Cade, Le Colline, plus 285 Howell Mtn Rd., 1220 Summit Lake Drive). Please provide a complete list of all Timber Harvest Plans 3 acre exemptions in the cumulative impacts analysis to forest resource.

Provide a cumulative impacts analysis to forest resources from PG & E powerline clearing programs. Please provide analysis of landscape level forest canopy loss from Valley, River, Ranch, Tubbs, Nuns, Atlas and other recent fires.

Biological Resource analysis is inadequate to address cumulative impacts to biological resources both on and off project site

The DEIR relies on Napa County Base Line Data report as a source document for determining the probability of species and habitat occurrences. The Base Line Date Report was completed in 2005 and significant vineyard development resulting in natural vegetation loss has occurred since. The Base Line Date Report is considered out of date and the County of Napa has contracted with UC Davis for an updated BDR. This DEIR cannot utilize outdated source documents for biological resource evaluations and as such the DEIR is inadequate to analysis project impacts. The DEIR must address cumulative biological impacts including proximate THP forest conversions to vineyard (Davis, Abreu, Bremer, Las Posadas LLC, Cliff Family, Howell Mountain CRU, Heiser, Heitz, Cade, Le Colline, plus 285 Howell Mtn. Rd. & 1220 Summit Lake Drive etc.). But rather than analyze these know impacts, the DIER provides no real discussion, rather makes leap of faith conclusions that this is how it is done in Napa County therefore there are no impacts!

THE DEIR uses biological surveys conducted by AES staff dating from 2015. These surveys are sufficiently dated to be unreliable and must be repeated. Pre-tree clearing surveys are insufficient to evaluate the impacts to resident animal species. In addition, AES biologists on similar projects, (Ciminelli) failed to document the presence of obviously visible wildlife corridors. The use of the term ‘designated wildlife corridors’ is undefined in this DEIR and appears to dismiss the obvious routes on project site connecting animal movement to adjacent undeveloped lands. Residents of Angwin are well acquainted with the few remaining areas allowing wildlife movement from one area to another for foraging, breeding and refuge. The AES conclusion of no significant impacts to wildlife corridors is disingenuous and warrants additional unbiased biological surveys.

The DEIR identified the presence of Northern Spotted Owl habitat on project site. However, the proposed mitigation “avoidance of the majority of Douglas Fir –Ponderosa Pine Alliance through project design, compliance with California Forest Practices Rule 14CCR919.99 9e scenario 4, and ongoing protocol surveys would reduce impacts to NSO to less than significant levels” has not been demonstrated to protect NSO historically in Napa County. In fact the loss of 1269.96 acres of forest within three miles of this project and the anticipated loss of an additional 488 acres in the next ten years clearly indicate that cumulative forest canopy loss from vineyard conversion has and continues to result in Northern Spotted Owl habitat loss. The DEIR actually identifies NSO habitat loss on project site!

Are Roost trees supporting bat populations proposed to be cleared? Were bat surveys conducted? What are mitigations for possible loss of roost trees?

Air Quality impacts from construction and disposal of non-merchantable trees is incomplete

Air quality impacts do not end with project completion and the DEIR must include an analysis of dust from roads as a permanent impact to adjoining forest vegetation. Please provide an analysis of the impacts to understory vegetation form ongoing exposure to dust from roadways. Reliance of so called Best Management Practices without specific mitigations details or quantifiable mitigation monitoring requirements are insufficient. The DEIR fails to analyze or mitigate the long term impacts of dust on forest resources.

Outfall of detention basin not defined

4

Figure 4.3.1 of the DEIR indicates the presence of unnamed class III steam to the (south) of the property. This stream crosses onto adjoining parcel to the north/east (Bravnte). The adjoining Bravante parcel also includes vineyard development. What is the cumulative impacts of nutrient loading into the stream? Will water quality monitoring occur? Block A (E) notes a detention basin within existing Heiser vineyard. Where does the water from this detention basin drain? Does project drainage flow to the unnamed class III stream on the Bravante parcel or does the Heiser detention basin empty to the neighboring Bravante pond? Is there presence of Western Pond Turtle in the pond on Bravante parcel? Were biological surveys conducted on this adjacent parcel as it appears to be impacted by the Heiser project? The stream appears to cross onto the Bravante property, which is not owned by applicant. How is the flow from existing and proposed Heiser vineyard allowed to add channelized flow onto Bravante property?

Provide specific detail to describe how disposal of non-merchantable vegetation will be addressed on site

Will cleared vegetation be burned? What are the cumulative impacts from vegetation burning to Green House Gases concerns? Local impacts to residents’ health? If onsite chipping of vegetation is proposed this becomes a water quality impact and the DEIR must discuss the impacts of concentration of chipped vegetation and toxic forest byproduct compounds. Where is chipped vegetation proposed to be disposed of onsite? Please describe if this is outside of vineyard blocks and/or in forest canopy? In headwaters drainages? This DIER provides no analysis of impacts from disposal of forest waste onsite as is typical in these vineyard conversions (Ciminelli) and is a potential significant contributor to degradation surface water quality.

Definitions of steam classes and classifications

Please verify that the stream definitions used in the DEIR are in accordance with State Department of Water Quality and Department of Fish and Wildlife stream classification systems. Note that on similar vineyard development projects including Bremmer Deer Park, the failure the County of Napa to recognize, adopt, adhere to State RWQB stream definitions resulted in the destruction of ephemeral stream channels during vineyard development. How are the stream classifications used at Heiser compatible with other responsible agencies definitions? STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER No. R2-2017-00XX FOR: BREMER FAMILY WINERY VINEYARD NAPA COUNTY 4. On September 19, 2016, Water Board staff inspected the Site to assess site conditions after receiving complaints related to construction of a vineyard. During the inspection, Water Board staff observed unauthorized fill in the Creek and evidence of unauthorized construction activities including installation of culverts, placement of rock fill below ordinary high water extending up into the adjacent floodplain and riparian area, and removal of riparian vegetation. Appendix A to this Order is a copy of the inspection report and photographs taken during the inspection. 5. The Dischargers failed to apply for or obtain proper authorizations and permits from the Water Board for the work at the Site. In addition, based on conversations with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) staff, there is no record that the Dischargers obtained proper authorizations or permits from either CDFW or the Corps. 6. The Creek is a water of the State and United States and is a tributary to the Napa River.

The DIER concludes incorrectly that the project has “no impacts” on Population and Housing, Transportation and Traffic, Noise, Growth Inducing 5

The DEIR provides no support for ‘no impacts’ to housing/growth inducing conclusions and ignores known and predictable impacts to need for additional housing in the Angwin area from increased workers at project site. All of Napa County, but particularly rural areas with increasing vineyard and winery development, are in desperate need of worker housing. The ‘no impact’ conclusion is unsupported by known vineyard and winery and hotel development data. Rather this wealthy project developer, maintains an empty residence, creates work in remote rural areas, and provides not one penny to housing impact funds and this DEIR concludes implausibly that there are no housing or growth inducing impacts! This conclusion is unsupported and impacts must be properly acknowledged. https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/letters/napa-valley-s-affordable-housing-needs-are-affecting- businesses/article_ada32111-08b9-5907-837e-d513ea2ba737.html

Also please discuss traffic impacts form foreseeable developments at Aetna Springs and developments in Lake County including the Guenoc Ranch. This is a reasonably foreseeable cumulative impact that must be addressed.

The noise impacts to adjacent conserved areas including impacts to wildlife and are dismissed in the DEIR as being exempt from impacts analysis by Napa County Right to Farm Ordinance 2.94.020. However, analysis of noise impacts from nearly 24 hour a day farm activity must be analyzed and mitigations provided. The ‘no impact’ conclusion is not supported as project proposes new activities which will generate noise from workers, tractors, spraying harvest and potentially frost protection equipment. 2.94.020 States agricultural activity shall not become a nuisance after three years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began. How are noise impacts to wildlife evaluated? The project site is relatively proximate to the Dunn Wildlakes Ranch a Napa County Land Trust permanently conserved property of 3,000 acres and the Audubon Cheney Preserve. Please provide a discussion of impacts to uses of this recreational resource form noise from project development and ongoing vineyard activities.

Oak woodland mitigation area

Project maps identifies an oak woodland mitigation area. How will this mitigation area be recorded legally to ensure permanent protections? Will a deed restriction or a conservation easement be recorded on mitigation area? Who will monitor compliance with mitigation area to ensure no unpermitted uses occur on mitigation area?

Geology & Soils

Landslides noted as less than significant is an inaccurate conclusion with no supporting evidence. Please discuss landslides following vineyard development at nearby locations following tree clearing including Mondavi Cold Springs Rd. , Cliff Family Ink Grade Rd. and the perpetual landslide along Old Howell Mountain Rd. These known vineyard failures and slides occurred on similar slopes and similar soils Aiken Loam and Rock Outcrop-Kidd Complex.

Please discuss specifically the land slide that occurred at the Mondavis Cold Springs project following forest canopy removal in terms of that landslides similarity to Heiser project. Please discuss the vineyard failure at Cliff Family following tree and vegetation removal and discuss how this project has similar vulnerability to landslides and failure following tree clearing. What assurances are provided that the subject project is not vulnerable to similar land slide events?

6

Figure 2Cliff Family Vineyard Burton Creek

Recent site visit (Kellie Anderson personal observation, January 16th, 2019) documented inadequate cover crop establishment at Heiser vineyard, no straw or straw waddles, wide herbicide sprayed middles and headlands resulting in significant sheet erosion across established vineyard which flowed to large muddy pool in the area of existing detention basin (near wind machine). It is apparent that current farming practices are inadequate to mitigate soil loss from existing vineyard blocks and leaves reasonable doubt that additional vineyard development of slopes up to 28% will be adequately mitigated to prevent significant soil loss. Please address lack of current mitigations in established vineyards blocks to reduce soil loss to less than pre-development conditions.

Current erosion control infrastructure on property appears to be installed incorrectly and several culverts/risers were installed too high or outside of actual water flows to intercept water from established vineyard. Please discuss how additional water from proposed new vineyard will be tied into the apparently improperly installed existing infrastructure.

Given currently eroding soils within existing vineyard blocks please support the conclusion ‘geologic site reconnaissance found no significant surface erosion or slope instability (Langan Treadwell Rolo 2015)’.

7

The DEIR fails to provide adequate detail of proposed engineered mitigations to evaluate mitigations adequacy

Known failures of similar vineyards infrastructure in project vicinity are ignored are in this analysis (Mondavi Cold Springs, Cliff Family Burton Creek, and Pringle Howell Mountain Mutual). Failures of existing Level Spreaders to perform as designed are known by county staff (Abreu Las Posadas Rd., Patrick Deer Park Rd.) must be considered this in erosion control mitigation analysis.

While the DEIR provides myriad calculations supporting the conclusion that erosion, liquefaction and landslides are mitigated by project design features, no discussion of the above vineyard failures was included. Many of this project principles including Napa Valley Vineyard Engineering, Jim Barbour and Scott Butler were involved in development of theses failed projects. AES and the County of Napa is now notified of past vineyard failures following timber clearing for vineyard development and must address the inadequacies of proposed erosion control infrastructure. THE DEIR must address the routine failure of level spreader proposed for use in the project. The proposed mitigation is inadequate to reduce erosion or to protect off site surface water resources given documented failures of level spreaders on similar soils in the Angwin area.

Impacts to soils from deep ripping

Please provide evidence that deep ripping of soil proposed to 36” will not result in landslides and erosion. Please discuss changes in RCD memos on increased soil permeability following deep ripping. Please discuss the types of equipment that will be required to perform the proposed deep ripping.

8

Inadequate detail to analyze impacts to biological resources, retained tree canopy on and off site

What mitigations measures beyond the oft noted Best Management Practices will preclude damage to retained forest, grassland, streams and shrub areas from pesticide mix load and wash out, outhouse washout and fertilizer injection?

Figure 3Steinschriber Vineyard THP

How will retained forest be protected over the life of the vineyard from vehicles, material and equipment storage?

Project proposal for 75 to 85 % cover crop?

The DEIR notes the establishment of permanent cover crop throughout the document. Coverage is reported as 75 to 85 % or 80 to 85 % on disturbed areas throughout DEIR. Please clarify the % of cover crop to be maintained. Is the % of cover crop similar to % cover on existing vineyard? How does cover crop mitigate for mature forest canopy loss? The existing vineyard is failing in lower slopes and sheet erosion is visible (possibly one of the worst winterizations on Howell Mountain). Please discuss the inconsistency of the mitigation with current ineffective on the ground erosion control practices.

9

Maintenance of erosion control infrastructure assumed in DEIR is not verifiable

During a recent visits to property during storm events, mud was visibly sheeting across large portions of existing vineyard, and a large pond of mud was visible in the area near wind machine. Recent herbicide application to vine rows and boarders had reduced cover, and large inlet culverts were installed such that they were bypassed by surface flows.

Erosion control infrastructure per NVVE utilizes filter fabric in construction of rock lined ditches, rock apron and other erosion control structures. What is the effective life of filter fabric to reduce fine silt loss from project site? Is there a rebuild schedule anticipated when useful life of filter fabric has been exceeded? The DEIR must analyze the efficacy of the erosion control mitigations over the life of the vineyard? What is the anticipated productive life of vineyard erosion control infrastructure?

Current pesticide use and proposed farming practices

Please provide details of the existing vineyards pesticide use regimen. This information is publically available from the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office in the form of Monthly Pesticide Use Reports. Is the existing vineyard a certified organic vineyard? Is the existing vineyard Certified Napa Green or Fish Friendly? Who is the certifying agency? Are rodenticides proposed to be used in proposed vineyard? What are the fertilizer and nutrients used in existing vineyard?

No Project Alternative

Establishment of a permanent conservation easement over forested undeveloped areas of the project site were not discussed in project alternatives. The DEIR must analyze a no project alternative. Given the proximity of project site to important watershed, wildlife habitat and thousands of acres of permanently conserved lands, the DEIR is flawed in its lack of honest analysis of permanent conservation as a feasible project alternative.

County of Napa Lead Agency obligation

As the responsible Lead Agency over this DEIR and all associated documents and studies, the County of Napa must have the capability of reviewing all content included in this DEIR for accuracy and completeness. The County of Napa does not currently has a staff member qualified to review the Northern Spotted Owl Protocol level surveys, nor the cumulative NSO surveys conducted historically for timber harvest conversions to vineyard in Napa County. Lacking adequate review of the Northern Spotted Owl survey for the Heiser DEIR, the cumulative impacts to Northern Spotted Owl populations and habitat is not adequately analyzed in this DEIR.

Needed baseline surveys, project details, setting details and mitigation measures feasibility must be included. This DEIR is incomplete and must be amended, corrected and recirculated.

Sincerely,

Kellie Anderson Linda Falls Alliance

10