P14-00069 Kongsgaard Final Approval

Planning, Building & Environmental Services
1195 Third Street, Suite 210
Napa, CA 94559
www.countyofnapa.org
David Morrison
Director
February 11, 2016 Kongsgaard Wine LLC John Kongsgaard 4377 Atlas Peak Road Napa, CA 94558 RE: Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion File No. P14‐00069‐ECPA APN 032‐540‐042 Dear Mr. Kongsgaard: The above‐referenced erosion control plan for the earthmoving associated with the development of approximately 20.08 gross acre vineyard (±14.7 net vine acres) has been reviewed by Napa County in order to assure its conformance with the goals and standards contained in Napa County’s Conservation Regulations (Chapter 18.108 of the County Code). Furthermore, the underlying project (i.e. the removal of the vegetation, re‐contouring of the site, the installation and maintenance of erosion control measures, the planting of vines, and subsequent operation), has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on this review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and adopted on this date. This action documents the fact that your project as modified will not have a significant effect on the environment. The subject erosion control plan has been approved this date. The approved plan, P14‐00069‐ECPA and narrative, consists of 5 plan sheets dated December, 2015, prepared by James R. Bushey (Registered Professional Engineer No. 49931) of PPI Engineering. The approved plans are stamped ‘APPROVED‘. This approval is contingent upon the owner and the owner’s agents adhering to the following conditions: 1. Strictly conform to all provisions of approved Agricultural Erosion Control Plan #P14‐00069‐ECPA, and maintaining the cover crop as specified in the plan and narrative. 2. Complying with the one (1) Mitigation Measure pertaining to Biological Resources, in the attested Project Revision Statement and adhering to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached). 3. Adhering throughout the duration of the project to the Oversight and Operation regulations specified in County Code Section 18.108.135 enclosed, which deal with among other things installation oversight, erosion control measure maintenance, monitoring, failure response, and non‐compliance. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Division Building Division Engineering & Conservation Environmental Health Parks & Open Space (707) 253‐4417 (707) 253‐4417 (707) 253‐4417 (707) 253‐4471 (707) 259‐5933 4. Pursuant to County Code Section 18.108.140(A)(2), a security shall be submitted within ten days of approval of the erosion control plan for the portions of the project within the Milliken watershed. 5. Implementation of the following measures to avoid encroachment into specified creek setbacks and associated riparian features: i. The location of creek setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with temporary construction fencing, which shall be placed at the outermost edge of required setbacks shown on the project plans. Prior to any earthmoving activities, temporary fencing shall be installed: the precise locations of said fences shall be inspected and approved by the Planning Division prior to any earthmoving and/or development activities. No disturbance, including grading, placement of fill material, storage of equipment, etc. shall occur within the designated areas for the duration of erosion control plan installation and vineyard installation. The protection fencing shall remain in place during the duration of project implementation and until wildlife exclusion fencing is installed as shown on the plans. ii. All construction and related traffic will remain on the inside (vineyard block side) of the protective fencing to ensure that the creek, buffer zones, and associated riparian habitat and/or woodland remains undisturbed. iii. In accordance with County Code Section 18.108.100 (Erosion hazard areas – Vegetation preservation and replacement) trees that are inadvertently removed that are not within the boundary of the project and/or not identified for removal as part of #P14‐00069‐ECPA shall be replaced on‐site with fifteen‐
gallon trees at a ratio of 2:1 at locations approved by the planning director. 6. Implementation of the following measures to protect trees/woodlands: i. Prior to any earthmoving activities, temporary fencing shall be placed at the edge of the dripline of trees to be retained that are located within 50‐feet of the project area. The precise locations of said fences shall be inspected and approved by the Planning Division prior to the commencement of any earthmoving activities. No disturbance, including grading, placement of fill material, storage of equipment, etc. shall occur within the designated area for the duration of erosion control plan installation and vineyard installation. ii. Trees removed that are not within the boundary of the project and/or not identified for removal as part of #P14‐00069‐ECPA shall be replaced on‐site with fifteen‐gallon trees at a ratio of 2:1 at locations approved by the director. iii. The permittee shall refrain from severely trimming the trees and vegetation to be retained adjacent to the vineyard conversion areas. 7. Discovery of historical, archaeological, paleontological resources, or human remains during construction, grading, or other earth moving activities. i. In accordance with CEQA Subsection 15064.5(f), should any previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources, including but not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, pockets of dark, friable solids, glass, metal, ceramics, wood or similar debris, be discovered during grading, trenching or other on‐site excavation(s), earth work within 100‐feet of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist certified by the Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), as determined necessary. ii. If human remains are encountered the Napa County Coroner shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required and/or if the remains are of Native American origin. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if such remains are of Native American origin the nearest tribal relatives as determined by the State Native American Heritage Commission will be Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 2 of 6 contacted to obtain recommendations for treating or removal of such remains, including grave goods, with appropriate dignity. iii. In the event that a discovery of a breas, true, and/or trace fossils are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the fined shall be temporarily halted of diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that should be followed before ground disturbing activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. iv. All persons working on‐site shall be bound by contract and instructed in the field to adhere to these provisions and restrictions. 8. Implementation of the following Air Quality Best Management Practices during construction activities, and vineyard maintenance and operations, as outlined in the ECP Narrative: i. All exposed surfaces (graded areas, staging areas, stockpiles, and unpaved roads) shall be covered or water twice per day. ii. All trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials shall be covered in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code during transit to and from the site. iii. The site access road and adjacent public roads shall be swept daily with wet power vacuum street sweepers, if visible soil material is carried/tracked out onto roadways. iv. Traffic on unpaved areas and roads shall be limited to 15 mph. v. Grading and earthmoving activities shall be suspended when winds exceed 25 mph. vi. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes, as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR). Signs clearly indicating this provision shall be installed at all access points. vii. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance in manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. viii. A sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be visibly posted at the site. The contact person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 9. Implementation of the following Hazardous Materials Best Management Practices during construction activities, and vineyard maintenance and operations: i. Workers shall follow manufacturer’s recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products; ii. Workers shall avoid overtopping fuel gas tanks and use automatic shutoff nozzles where available; iii. During routine maintenance of equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils; iv. Discarded containers of fuel and other chemicals shall be properly disposed of; v. Spill containment features shall be installed at the project site wherever chemicals are stored overnight; vi. All refueling, maintenance of vehicles and other equipment, handling of hazardous materials, and staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet from water courses, the existing groundwater well, and any other water resource to avoid the potential for risk of surface and groundwater contamination; and, vii. To prevent the accidental discharge of fuel or other fluids associated with vehicles and other equipment, all workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 3 of 6 10. The owner/applicant shall implement the following bat avoidance measures prior to the commencement of vineyard development and implementation activities: i. For earth‐disturbing activities occurring during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre‐construction surveys within 14 days of the project initiation containing potential bat‐roosting habitat for special status bat species within 200 feet of earthmoving activities. Roosting habitat surveys shall focus on a) trees slated for removal that have loose bark, or holes/crevices in the trunk and b) rock piles slated for removal that contain crevices. ii. If the pre‐construction surveys reveal suitable special‐status bat habitat and/or habitat trees, the qualified biologist shall submit an avoidance plan to the County and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) for approval. The avoidance plan shall identify and evaluate the type of habitat present at the project site and detail habitat and/or habitat tree removal. iii. Bat habitat/tree removal shall occur in two phases conducted over two days under the supervision of a qualified biologist: day one in the afternoon limbs and branches of habitat trees without cavities, crevices and deep bark fissures would be removed by chainsaw (limbs with cavities, crevices and deep bark fishers would be avoided); day two the entire tree can be removed. In the event the bat avoidance measures required by DFW result in a reduction or modification of vineyard block boundaries, the erosion control plan shall be revised by the applicant/engineer and submitted to the County. 11. The owner/applicant shall conduct the following raptor and passerine bird preconstruction survey(s) consistent with and pursuant to California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 prior to the commencement of vineyard development and implementation activities: i. For earth‐disturbing activities occurring between March 1 and September 1, (which coincides with the grading season of April 1 through September 1 – NCC Section 18.108.070.L, and bird breeding and nesting seasons), a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for raptor and passerine bird courtship activities and/or their nests within a 500‐feet radius of earthmoving activities. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities are to commence (surveys should be conducted a minimum of 3 separate days during the 14 days prior to disturbance). A copy of the survey will be provided to the County Conservation Division and the DFW prior to commencement of work. ii. In the event that nesting raptors and/or birds are found during preconstruction surveys, the property owner shall consult with DFW and obtain approval for specific nest‐protection buffers as appropriate based on species found prior to commencement of ground‐breaking activities: generally a minimum 250‐foot no‐disturbance buffer will be created around all active passerine bird nests and a minimum 500‐foot buffer shall be created around all active raptor nests during the breeding and nesting season or until it is determined by a qualified biologist that all young have fledged. All nest protection measures shall apply to off‐site active nests that are located within 500 feet of project activities. These buffer zones may be modified in coordination with DFW based on existing conditions at the project site. Buffer zones shall be fenced with temporary construction fencing and remain in place until the end of the breading season or until young have fledged. iii. If a 15 day or greater lapse of project‐related work occurs during the breeding season, another bird and raptor preconstruction survey and consultation with DFW will be required before project work can be reinitiated. 12. Refraining from disposing of debris, storage of materials, or constructing/operating vineyard avenues outside the boundaries of the approved plan. Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 4 of 6 13. Installation and maintenance of wildlife exclusion fencing as specified in approved Erosion Control Plan #P14‐00069‐ECPA. 14. The permittee shall (at the permittee’s expense) maintain well monitoring data monthly and the total annual groundwater pumped. Data requested shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, water extraction volumes and static well levels and shall be provided to County annually. Water usage shall be minimized by use of best available control technology and best water management conservation practices. i. No new on‐site or off‐site water sources, including but not limited to wells, imported water, new ponds/reservoir(s) or other surface water impoundments, or use of an existing pond to serve the vineyard shall be permitted without additional environmental review (if necessary) and may be subject to a modification to this ECPA. A new Water Availability Analysis (if necessary) shall be required prior to approval of any new water source(s) on the property serving the vineyard. ii. All monitoring shall commence upon planting of the area approved by the ECPA and shall be submitted annually thereafter. iii. The monitoring required by these conditions shall verify that the water use assumptions and the actual water use are consistent with the usage and assumptions analyzed in the Water Availability Analysis prepared by Richard C. Slade & Associates LLC – Consulting Groundwater Geologists dated February 11 2015 for the Kongsgaard Vineyard Property. If the actual water usage is greater than what was assumed in the WAA, the report shall analyze whether the increased water usage is likely to have potential impacts and whether it results in the annual water allocation of 35 acre‐feet per year (af/yr) in normal years and 24.5 af/yr in dry years (dry years are defined as 70% or less of normal rainfall) for the project being exceeded. If the annual water allocation is exceeded, the report shall recommend ways in which water usage can be reduced so as not to exceed the allocation the following year. All recommendations shall be immediately implemented to the satisfaction of the PBES Director. iv. If after two successive years of reporting the monitoring shows that the annual water allocation identified above continues to be exceeded, this ECPA shall be scheduled for review by the PBES Director and possible modification, revocation or suspension provided the Director has provided notice and an opportunity for hearing in compliance with Napa County Code §13.15.070 (G‐K). v. Groundwater pumping shall not exceed 35 af/yr in normal years and 24.5 af/yr in dry years. 15. All persons working on‐site shall be bound by contract and instructed in the field to adhere to all provisions and restrictions specified above. 16. Monitoring Costs: All staff costs associated with monitoring compliance with the above conditions shall be borne by the permittee and/or property owner. Costs associated with conditions and mitigation measures that require monitoring, including investigation of complaints, other than those costs related to investigation of complaints of non‐compliance that are determined to be unfounded, shall be charged at the rate in effect at the time monitoring occurs. Violations of conditions of approval or mitigations measures caused by the permittee’s contractors, employees, and guests are the responsibility of the permittee. The owner and/or the owner’s contractor must keep the approved plans, or a copy thereof, available on‐site at all times while site improvement and vineyard installation work is taking place. Said work includes, but is not limited to, ground clearing, grading, vine planting, and installation and maintenance of erosion control measures. Furthermore, prior to commencement of work you must acquire any/all other required Local, State and Federal permits necessary to implement this project. Finally, no grading, earthmoving activities, or soil disturbance of any kind can take place between September 1st of each year and April 1st of the following year pursuant to Section 18.108.027(C) of the Napa Co Conservation Regulations. The property owner may submit a request to extend this deadline by filing a Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 5 of 6 Monitoring
Impact BIO-1: Biological Resources.
Installation of #P14-00069-ECPA has the
potential to result in significant impacts to
sensitive plant species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Erosion Control Plan #P14-00069-ECPA shall be
amended prior to approval to include the following measures in combination to
reduce potential impacts to Holly-leaved ceanothus, western flax, and Napa
Lomatium to a less than significant level through a combination of avoidance,
preservation, and restoration. Specifically, the mitigation for the removal of an
estimated 0.6 acres of Holly-leaved ceanothus, 0.1 acres of Western flax, and 0.1
acres of Napa Lomatium would be accomplished through a combination of 1)
avoidance of areas where the Holly-leaved ceanothus and Western flax
populations and habitat overlap; 2) preserve and conserve the highest density of
both species.
Permittee shall implement Measure
BIO-1 by incorporating provisions
BR-1a into the ECPA prior to
approval.
P
CD
Schedule BIO-1a: Prior to approval
of #P14-00069-ECPA.
P
Avoidance:
a. Erosion Control Plan #P14-00069-ECPA shall be amended prior to approval
to clearly avoid Holly-leaved ceanothus and western flax identified by the
biologist located within Block 1. A “no disturbance buffer” shall be
established around the western flax and holly-leaved ceanothus populations
to ensure that they will not be disturbed by vineyard conversion. Prior to
project construction, a qualified biologist shall place flagging around the
areas of the property in which western flax and Holly-leaved ceanothus was
observed.
b. Flagging shall be placed 25 feet from the outermost area of individual plants.
Flagging shall be installed and reviewed by the Napa County Conservation
Division prior to commencement of any work on-site, and shall remain in
place through the duration of ground disturbing activities.
PC
__/__/__
CD
PC
__/__/__
Schedule BIO-1b: Prior to any
grading related to #P14-00069ECPA.
P
CD
PC/CPI/OG
__/__/__
Notes: P = Permittee, CD = Conservation Division, RCD = Resource Conservation District, AC = Agricultural Commissioner, DFG = Dept of Fish & Game, CT = CALTRANS, EM = Environmental
Management, PW = Public Works Dept, PE/G =Project Engineer/Geologist
PC = Prior to Project Commencement CPI = Construction Period Inspections FI = Final Inspection OG = Ongoing PI= Prior to Installation of infrastructure (i.e. trellis and irrigation) and planting
February 2016: Kongsgaard Wine LLC #P14-00069-ECPA
Completion
Monitoring and Reporting
Actions and Schedule
Date of
Compliance/
Adopted Mitigation Measure
Reporting &
Potential Environmental Impact
Implementation
Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion Agricultural Erosion Control Plan #P14-00069-ECPA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 1 of 1
18.108.135 - Oversight and operation.
A. Installation Oversight. The qualified professional preparing an erosion control plan shall oversee its
implementation. Prior to the first winter rains after construction begins and each year thereafter until the
project has received a final inspection from the county or its agent and been found complete, the qualified
professional shall inspect the site and certify in writing to the director that all of the erosion control
measures required at that stage of development have been installed in conformance with the plan and related
specifications.
B. Maintenance. The property owner is responsible for insuring that the erosion control measures installed
operate properly and are effective in reducing to a minimum erosion and related sedimentation. The
property owner shall either personally or have personnel inspect and repair/clean as necessary the erosion
control measures installed at least weekly during the period between October 1st and April 1st of each year.
Moreover, the property owner shall either be onsite him/herself or have personnel on site as required when
it is raining to inspect the erosion control measures present and take those actions necessary to keep them
functioning properly.
C. Monitoring. For projects disturbing more than one acre of land or with an average slope greater than
fifteen percent, the property owner shall implement, prior to the first winter rains after installation of the
planned facilities is commenced, a permanent, on-going program of self-monitoring of ground cover
condition, and erosion control facility operation. The ground cover monitoring shall follow the procedures
promulgated by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the SCS) for determining
rangeland condition for hydrologic assessment.
For projects involving disturbance of more than forty acres of land or containing areas with slopes greater than
thirty percent totaling a quarter acre or more, an Annual Erosion Control Plan Operation Status Report
specifying ground cover condition and how the erosion control measures involved are operating shall be
provided to the director and, if in a sensitive domestic water supply drainage, the owner/operator(s) of any
public-serving drinking water supply reservoir present by September 1st of each year. This report shall specify
the proposed management and cultural measures to be used the following year to return or maintain the ground
cover in good condition in all parts of the area disturbed including vineyard avenues and any remedial actions
that will be taken to get the other erosion control measures present to operate in such a manner as to minimize
erosion and resultant sedimentation.
D. Failures. The following provisions shall apply where erosion control measures have failed or are in
imminent danger of failing.
1. Property Owner Duties—Temporary Measures. The property owner shall:
a. Notify the director in writing of the failure or pending failure of any erosion control measures
within twenty-four hours of discovery and indicate the temporary measures taken to stabilize the
situation;
b. Modify, within twenty-four hours of the time that they receive comments from the
independent engineer hired by the county to review the adequacy of these temporary measures,
the temporary measures in the manner deemed necessary by the property owner's engineer so as
to make them adequate to prevent further damage and problems;
2. Property Owner Duties—Permanent Remedial Measures. The property owner shall:
a. Submit within ninety-six hours after the discovery of a failure or pending failure:
i. An engineered plan for the remedial measures necessary to permanently correct the
problem and an engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and
ii. A plan for cleanup of the damage done with an engineer's estimate for the cost of this
work;
b. Resubmit to the county, within forty-eight hours of the time comments are received from the
independent engineer hired by the county to review the temporary measures installed, the plan,
and engineer's cost estimates revised plans and estimates;
c. Pay the county the costs of this review within forty-eight hours of demand;
d. Post a security in one of the forms specified by subsection (A)(1) through (4) of Section
17.38.030 in the amount equal to one hundred percent of the accepted estimated total cost to do
the work required to correct the situation and cleanup the damage done within forty-eight hours
of demand; and
e. Insure that the revised plan prepared is fully implemented within ninety-six hours of its
approval. The time frames specified in this subsection are maximums. The director may in the
case of an immediate threat to public health and/or safety require performance in shorter time
periods.
3. Plan Preparer Duties. The plan preparer shall provide a notice to the county within twenty-four
hours of full implementation of the plan prepared to permanently correct the problem certifying that
the measures shown have been installed in conformance with said plan and related specifications.
4. Noncompliance. Failure to adhere to the provisions of subsections (D)(1) and (2) above may be
considered a threat to public health and safety. The director may in such instances take immediate
action without further notice or hearing to remedy the situation and bill the property owner for the
remedial work done. The director shall keep an itemized account of the costs incurred in remedying
the situation. The board shall conduct a hearing on the costs in accordance with Sections 1.20.090
through 1.20.130 of this code and shall give the property owner an opportunity to object to the costs
prior to recording a lien against the property or pursuing other cost-recovery actions.
E. Inspection.
1. Each project requiring an erosion control plan that has not received a final inspection and been
found complete by the director or his/her agent shall be inspected by the county or its agent after the
first major storm event of each winter until the project has been completed and stable for three years.
If it is found that the erosion control program implemented is not functioning properly or is ineffective
the property owner shall take such remedial measures as the director deems necessary to reduce
erosion and related sedimentation to minimal levels. The full costs of said measures and the related
inspections shall be borne by the property owner.
2. Five percent of projects that have received a final inspection and been found complete by the
director or his/her agent shall be spot checked by the director or his/her agent each year to confirm
groundcover condition and the proper operation of other erosion control measures. The director, in
cooperation with the Napa County Resource Conservation District (RCD) and other county
departments and agencies, will develop a remedial program to address any deficiencies that may be
identified as the result of these spot checks. The property owner shall implement this program, which
may include re-seeding all or some portions of the site or changing agricultural or management
practices. He/she shall pay all costs associated with these spot-checks.
F. Right of Entry. With the property owner's consent, with a warrant, or in an emergency, the property
owner shall give the director and his/her agents full and complete access to and throughout the project area
so as to allow:
1. Inspection of the erosion control and any remedial measures installed there to insure that they are
functioning properly,
2. The making of necessary repairs or corrections to alleviate an erosion control problem or potential
erosion control problem, or
3. The performance of needed maintenance.
(Ord. 1219 § 4, 2003)
18.108.140 - Security, violations, and penalties.
A. Security.
1. No earthmoving activity, grading, improvement, or construction of a structure for which an erosion
control plan is required or for which compliance with the NPDES program is required by this chapter
shall commence until the property owner has filed security in the form, specified in subsection (A)(2)
of this section if any of the proposed earth moving activities:
a. May pose a significant safety or public health risk,
b. May result in a potential water quality impairment,
c. Is located in an area determined to have a severe soil erosion hazard as determined by the
director in consultation with the Napa County Resource Conservation District based on the Napa
County Soil Survey prepared by the Federal Resource Conservation Service, incorporated herein
by reference,
d. Is located in a sensitive domestic water supply drainage,
e. Involves a failure or potential failure of existing erosion control measures, or
f. Is otherwise deemed warranted by the director.
2. The security required by subsection (A)(1) of this section shall be submitted within ten days of
approval of an erosion control plan, approval of the activity subject to the NPDES program or prior to
earthmoving, whichever comes first, and shall be comprised of both of the following:
a. Security in the amount of the estimated cost of original installation of the required erosion
control measures, which shall be posted with the director in one or more of the forms specified
by subsections (A)( 1) through (4) of Section 17.38.030.
b. Security in the amount of twenty-five percent of the estimated costs of original installation of
the required erosion control measures, which shall be posted with the director in one or more of
the forms specified by subsections (A)(1) through (4) of Section 17.38.030 or in the form of
recorded lien as specified in subsection (A)(5) of Section 17.38.030 against the parcel on which
the measures are installed for the purpose of ensuring ongoing maintenance of the required
erosion control measures in the manner specified in the erosion control plan.
3. The security required under subsection (A)(2)(a) of this section shall not be released by the director
until:
a. All required measures have been installed/implemented, and
b. The director has made a final inspection and confirmed the installation of required erosion
control measures.
4. The security required under subsection (A)(2)(b) of this section shall not be released by the director
until:
a. Three winters after subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) of this section have passed without any
substantial problem,
b. In the case of a substantial problem or failure, any needed cleanup has been completed,
erosion control measures have been corrected, and three winters have passed without any
substantial problem, and
c. The director has made a final inspection and confirmed ongoing maintenance of the erosion
control measures.
B. Violations. Whenever the director determines that a violation of this chapter has occurred, the director
shall notify the violator in writing of the violation and require that certain conditions be implemented or
adhered to in a reasonable amount of time to correct the erosion problem. Conditions may include applying
for approval of an erosion control plan, implementation of remedial erosion control actions, removal of
agricultural crops and related infrastructure planted without an approved erosion control plan or use permit,
removal of structures constructed in violation of the NPDES program, and/or revegetation of disturbed
areas. Each failure to comply with the director's notice or meet the deadlines specified therein shall
constitute a separate and distinct violation, punishable as set forth in subsection (C) of this section.
Moreover, the county and its agents may with the property owner's consent, with a warrant, or in an
emergency enter the property and make necessary repairs or corrections, or perform needed maintenance.
The property owner shall fully and completely reimburse the county for the costs associated with this
remedial work.
C. Penalties. It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to violate any of the provisions of this
chapter for any purpose or to cause any other person to do so. Such a violation shall be enforceable as a
misdemeanor pursuant to Napa County Code Sections 1.20.150 and 1.20.160. Such a violation may also be
abated as a public nuisance by judicial action or by administrative enforcement in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 1.20, commencing with Section 1.20.010, including those pertaining to
treble damages for multiple judgments. In addition administrative penalties may be imposed in the manner
specified in Chapter 1.28 (Administrative Penalty) of the Napa County Code. In addition, the director may
issue a stop work order, report the violator to the appropriate licensing agencies (such as the State
Contractor's Licensing Board), report the violator to applicable responsible and trustee agencies, require that
the violator apply for and obtain all required permits, refer the matter to the district attorney's office for civil
or criminal prosecution and any such other remedies the director deems appropriate.
(Ord. 1300 § 7, 2007: Ord. 1269 § 4, 2005: Ord. 1219 § 5, 2003: Ord. 991 § 1 (part), 1991: prior code § 12462)
Planning, Building & Environmental Services
nd
1195 Third Street, 2 Floor
Napa, CA 94559
www.countyofnapa.org
David Morrison
Director
TO: Application File #P14‐000069‐ECPA FROM: Brian Bordona – Supervising Planner DATE: February 11, 2016 RE: Response to Comments on Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion File# P14‐00069‐ECPA APN: 032‐540‐042 SCH#: 2015032054 INTRODUCTION This memorandum has been prepared by County staff to respond to comments received by the Napa County Planning, Building & Environmental Services Department (Napa County) on the Proposed Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Proposed IS/MND) prepared for the Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion #P14‐00069‐ECPA (proposed project). An IS/MND is an informational document prepared by a Lead Agency, in this case, Napa County, that provides environmental analysis for public review and for the agency decision‐makers to consider before taking discretionary actions related to any proposed project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The Proposed IS/MND analyzed the impacts resulting from the proposed project and where applicable, identified mitigation measures to minimize the impacts to less‐than‐significant levels. This memorandum for the Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion #P14‐00069‐ECPA Proposed IS/MND presents the name of the persons and/or organizations commenting on the Proposed IS/MND and responses to the received comments. This memorandum, in combination with the Proposed IS/MND, completes the Final IS/MND. CEQA PROCESS In accordance with Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, Napa County submitted the Proposed IS/MND to the State Clearinghouse for a 30‐day public review period starting on March 17, 2015. In addition, Napa County circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt the Proposed IS/MND to interested agencies and individuals. The public review period ended on April 15, 2015. In response to requests from the public to extend the comment period, the Planning Director formally extended the comment period for an addition 30 days, which closed on May 15, 2015. During the public review period, Napa County received nine comment letters on the Proposed IS/MND, including notice from the California State Clearinghouse. Table 1 below lists the entities that submitted comments on the Proposed IS/MND during the public review and comment period. The comment letters are attached. TABLE 1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED IS/MND Comment Comments Received from Date Received
A California State Clearinghouse May 18, 2015 B City of Napa Public Works Department – Water Division March 13, 2015
C Robert Wallin May 7, 2015 D Tom Vreeland May 9, 2015 E Gordon Evans (on behalf of Watersheds Alliance for Atlas Peak) May 9, 2015 F Sierra Club ‐ Napa Group May 12, 2015 G Elan Vineyards May 13, 2015 H Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe, APC (on behalf of Living Rivers Council) May 14, 2015 I Jim Wilson May 14, 2015 J Provencher & Flatt, LLP (on behalf of Defenders of East Bay Watersheds) May 15, 2015 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), Napa County considers the Proposed IS/MND together with comments received, both during the public review process and before action on the project, prior to adopting the Proposed IS/MND and rendering a decision on the project. The CEQA Guidelines do not require the preparation of a response to comments for mitigated negative declarations; however, this memorandum responds to comments received. Based on review of the comments received, no new, potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the Proposed IS/MND would occur, no mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and none of the grounds for recirculation of the Proposed IS/MND as specified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 have been identified. All potential impacts identified in the Proposed IS/MND were determined to be less‐than‐significant. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Comment A: California State Clearinghouse Response to Comment A ‐ 1.1: The State Clearinghouse issued a letter at the close of the public comment period indicating that the Proposed IS/MND was reviewed and no comments received. No further response is necessary at this time. Comment B: City of Napa Public Works Department – Water Division Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 2 of 15 Response to Comment B ‐ 1.1: The property owner and erosion control plan preparer are responsible for the successful implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures specified in the approved plan, which is mandated pursuant to Napa County Code Section 18.108.135 as follows: A. Installation Oversight. The qualified professional preparing an erosion control plan shall oversee its implementation. Prior to the first winter rains after construction begins and each year thereafter until the project has received a final inspection from the county or its agent and been found complete, the qualified professional shall inspect the site and certify in writing to the director that all of the erosion control measures required at that stage of development have been installed in conformance with the plan and related specifications. B. Maintenance. The property owner is responsible for insuring that the erosion control measures installed operate properly and are effective in reducing to a minimum erosion and related sedimentation. The property owner shall either personally or have personnel inspect and repair/clean as necessary the erosion control measures installed at least weekly during the period between October 1st and April 1st of each year. Moreover, the property owner shall either be onsite him/herself or have personnel on site as required when it is raining to inspect the erosion control measures present and take those actions necessary to keep them functioning properly. C. Monitoring. For projects disturbing more than one acre of land or with an average slope greater than fifteen percent, the property owner shall implement, prior to the first winter rains after installation of the planned facilities is commenced, a permanent, on‐going program of self‐
monitoring of ground cover condition, and erosion control facility operation. The ground cover monitoring shall follow the procedures promulgated by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the SCS) for determining rangeland condition for hydrologic assessment. For projects involving disturbance of more than forty acres of land or containing areas with slopes greater than thirty percent totaling a quarter acre or more, an Annual Erosion Control Plan Operation Status Report specifying ground cover condition and how the erosion control measures involved are operating shall be provided to the director and, if in a sensitive domestic water supply drainage, the owner/operator(s) of any public‐serving drinking water supply reservoir present by September 1st of each year. This report shall specify the proposed management and cultural measures to be used the following year to return or maintain the ground cover in good condition in all parts of the area disturbed including vineyard avenues and any remedial actions that will be taken to get the other erosion control measures present to operate in such a manner as to minimize erosion and resultant sedimentation. D. Failures. The following provisions shall apply where erosion control measures have failed or are in imminent danger of failing. 1. Property Owner Duties—Temporary Measures. The property owner shall: a. Notify the director in writing of the failure or pending failure of any erosion control measures within twenty‐four hours of discovery and indicate the temporary measures taken to stabilize the situation; Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 3 of 15 b. Modify, within twenty‐four hours of the time that they receive comments from the independent engineer hired by the county to review the adequacy of these temporary measures, the temporary measures in the manner deemed necessary by the property ownerʹs engineer so as to make them adequate to prevent further damage and problems; 2. Property Owner Duties—Permanent Remedial Measures. The property owner shall: a. Submit within ninety‐six hours after the discovery of a failure or pending failure: i. An engineered plan for the remedial measures necessary to permanently correct the problem and an engineerʹs estimate of the cost thereof, and ii. A plan for cleanup of the damage done with an engineerʹs estimate for the cost of this work; b. Resubmit to the county, within forty‐eight hours of the time comments are received from the independent engineer hired by the county to review the temporary measures installed, the plan, and engineerʹs cost estimates revised plans and estimates; c. Pay the county the costs of this review within forty‐eight hours of demand; d. Post a security in one of the forms specified by subsection (A)(1) through (4) of Section 17.38.030 in the amount equal to one hundred percent of the accepted estimated total cost to do the work required to correct the situation and cleanup the damage done within forty‐eight hours of demand; and e. Insure that the revised plan prepared is fully implemented within ninety‐six hours of its approval. The time frames specified in this subsection are maximums. The director may in the case of an immediate threat to public health and/or safety require performance in shorter time periods. 3. Plan Preparer Duties. The plan preparer shall provide a notice to the county within twenty‐
four hours of full implementation of the plan prepared to permanently correct the problem certifying that the measures shown have been installed in conformance with said plan and related specifications. 4. Noncompliance. Failure to adhere to the provisions of subsections (D)(1) and (2) above may be considered a threat to public health and safety. The director may in such instances take immediate action without further notice or hearing to remedy the situation and bill the property owner for the remedial work done. The director shall keep an itemized account of the costs incurred in remedying the situation. The board shall conduct a hearing on the costs in accordance with Sections 1.20.090 through 1.20.130 of this code and shall give the property owner an opportunity to object to the costs prior to recording a lien against the property or pursuing other cost‐recovery actions. E. Inspection. 1. Each project requiring an erosion control plan that has not received a final inspection and been found complete by the director or his/her agent shall be inspected by the county or its agent after the first major storm event of each winter until the project has been completed and stable for three years. If it is found that the erosion control program implemented is not functioning properly or is ineffective the property owner shall take such remedial measures as the director deems necessary to reduce erosion and related sedimentation to minimal levels. Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 4 of 15 The full costs of said measures and the related inspections shall be borne by the property owner. 2. Five percent of projects that have received a final inspection and been found complete by the director or his/her agent shall be spot checked by the director or his/her agent each year to confirm groundcover condition and the proper operation of other erosion control measures. The director, in cooperation with the Napa County Resource Conservation District (RCD) and other county departments and agencies, will develop a remedial program to address any deficiencies that may be identified as the result of these spot checks. The property owner shall implement this program, which may include re‐seeding all or some portions of the site or changing agricultural or management practices. He/she shall pay all costs associated with these spot‐checks. F. Right of Entry. With the property ownerʹs consent, with a warrant, or in an emergency, the property owner shall give the director and his/her agents full and complete access to and throughout the project area so as to allow: 1. Inspection of the erosion control and any remedial measures installed there to insure that they are functioning properly, 2. The making of necessary repairs or corrections to alleviate an erosion control problem or potential erosion control problem, or 3. The performance of needed maintenance.
Response to Comments B ‐ 1.2 and 1.3: The proposed project involves the conversion of 24.3 acres of vegetation (manzanita chaparral alliance, annual grassland, and mixed oak woodland alliance) and the installation of approximately 17.3 net vine acres of new vineyard within a 148 acre parcel. Approximately 522 trees within approximately 8‐acres are proposed to be removed with the proposed retention of 800 trees within a 12‐14 acre area as part of a voluntary Oak Woodland retention area. The project also involves the implementation of an erosion control plan (ECP) prepared by a licensed engineer which specifies numerous best management practices intended to control runoff, minimize soil loss and protect water quality. In particular, the ECP includes a permanent no‐till cover crop (with a density ranging from 75%‐80%), a sediment trap, diversions, vegetated buffers from waterways and streams, drop inlets and subsurface drainage pipelines, among other features. From a runoff and erosion perspective, Napa County requires all discretionary projects to be designed to result in no increase in stormwater runoff and soil erosion (Napa County General Plan policy CON‐
48). To verify consistency with this requirement, the applicant provided hydrologic modeling (WIN TR‐55) and soil loss modeling (Universal Soil Loss Equation ‐ USLE). Technical review of the ECP and related technical reports was conducted by the Napa County Resource Conservation District and the Napa County Planning, Building and Environmental Services – Engineering and Conservation Division, which confirmed compliance with the County’s standards. This information is presented in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. It should also be noted that the predicted changes in runoff and erosion in the TR‐55 and USLE models, respectively, are not reflective of the 0.6 acre area within Proposed Block A that is required to be avoided in order to reduce impacts to biological resources (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐1). Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 5 of 15 Furthermore, design elements and best management practices such as vegetated buffers to streams and waterways similarly are not reflected in the modeling. Nevertheless, even absent these features from the modeling results (as well as the reduction in project acreage as described above), the modeling results predict a decrease in runoff and erosion within both Milliken and Capell Creek – Upper Reach watersheds (also see PPI Engineering Memorandum, dated October 7, 2015). Because water quality would be even further protected given the avoidance of Block A and vegetated buffers, the Proposed IS/MND provides a conservative analysis. Following the close of the public review period, the applicant elected to make minor revisions to the project that provided further reductions in runoff and erosion potential. In particular, proposed Block 3D (+/‐ 0.7 acres) was removed from the project, including the subsurface drainage system within and adjacent to the block. The removal of the block also retains the existing mixed oak and manzanita alliances as well as maintains the functionality of a minor swale located at the north edge of the block. Response to Comment B ‐ 1.4: As discussed and analyzed in the Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality and Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections of the Proposed IS/MND, the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to water quality due to increased erosion, fertilizer applications, or use of pesticides as addressed in Responses to Comments B‐1.2 and 1.3. The project would incorporate several measures to minimize the potential for erosion and transport of pollutants during ECPA installation and subsequent vineyard planting activities. For example, the proposed vineyard area would be developed in areas with average slopes not greater than 30%. A permanent no‐
till cover crop would be used on all vineyard blocks and avenues and all areas would be seeded prior to September 15th to minimize the likelihood of impacts from rainfall‐generated runoff. Further, the ECPA incorporates stream setbacks between proposed vineyard blocks and streams. Following installation of the ECPA and planting of the vineyard, the sediment yield from the vineyard into the creeks and downstream from the project site would be less than under existing conditions. Minimal published water quality data exists on runoff from existing vineyards. As part of a vineyard Erosion Control Plan Environmental Impact Report (Upper Range – Rodgers Vineyard), water quality data from a similar nearby vineyard site was collected to provide for a better understanding of what contaminants may be in the runoff from the project site. A total of three sites were sampled and samples were collected near the end of the 2004 rainy season. Two of the sites were on the valley floor in areas heavily developed in vineyard. According to the report, sulfate and butanoic acid (2,4‐DB) were the only contaminants found to exist in the runoff. The sulfate concentration found on all three sites was well below the 250 mg/L listed as an objective for municipal water supply, and 2,4‐DB was not a listed parameter (visit http://www.countyofnapa.org/UpperRange/ or see file No. 02454‐ECPA on file with PBES for additional details). The applicant can be expected to apply regulated pesticides and herbicides, which are commonly used in Napa County. When used according to the manufacturer’s instructions and applicable state and federal regulations, these applications would not result in substantial water quality impacts. In addition, there is a predicted decrease in sediment delivery from the site (also see Response to Comments B ‐ 1.2 and 1.3). Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 6 of 15 Response to Comment B ‐ 1.5: The project is located within a 148 acre parcel that spans both the Milliken Reservoir and Capell Creek – Upper Reach watersheds. Approximately 12.6 net acres of new vineyard is proposed within the Milliken Reservoir watershed and 4.5 net acres in the Capell Creek – Upper Reach watershed. Water would be provided by an existing on‐site well as depicted in Figure 1 of Richard Slade and Associates LLC’s (RCS) February 11, 2015 groundwater report for the project. The well is located within the Milliken Creek watershed. Based on the values listed above, approximately 2.8 acre feet per year would be required to support the 4.5 acres of proposed vineyard within the Capell Creek – Upper Reach watershed. The County is not aware of any restrictions on the use of groundwater within a holding that spans two or more watersheds. In response to comments received by the County regarding groundwater, RCS provided two memoranda, dated October 1, 2015 and November 13, 2015, to answer questions posed by those commenters of their February 11, 2015 memorandum. The October 1, 2015 memorandum concludes on Page 11 that, “it is very unlikely that pumping the relatively small volume of groundwater necessary for the proposed project… from aquifers that underlie the subject property within the Sonoma Volcanics will affect the groundwater underflow into the ‘MST study area’.” With respect to impacts related to springs and seeps, RCS explains in their November 13, 2015 memorandum that only a single seep is known to exist onsite. That seep is reported to be seasonal only (does not flow year round), and was observed by the RCS geologists to be dry at the time of their site visit. As such, RCS opines that the seep source is very likely shallow and does not derive groundwater from the deeper aquifer system located beneath the subject property. Additionally, “the average annual groundwater recharge estimated to occur at the subject property is significantly larger than the groundwater demand for the project.” (See attached memoranda for additional details.) Response to Comment B ‐ 1.6: The County will include its most current groundwater monitoring language as a standard condition of approval for the project. Comment C: Robert Wallin Response to Comment C ‐ 1.1: The commenter expresses concern for permitted and non‐permitted activities associated with land conversion, wineries, and associated activities. The comment is a general statement about enforcement of legal and illegal activities within the County and does not pertain to the proposed project or potential environmental impacts. No further response is necessary. Response to Comments C ‐ 1.2 and C‐ 1.3: The cumulative effects of the Kongsgaard project, Circle S Ranch project and the Walt Ranch project have been adequately discussed and analyzed in their respective CEQA documents (also see Response to Comment B ‐ 1.5). RCS has shown in their memoranda that estimates of the average annual recharge and estimates of drought period recharge that occurs solely within the boundaries of the 148 acre Kongsgaard property exceed the groundwater demand for the proposed Kongsgaard project. Response to Comment C ‐ 1.4: Noise related to the project and minor temporary increases in traffic would be subject to within the County’s noise standards in Chapter 8.16 of Napa County Code and applicable General Plan policies and would be considered typical for a remote rural agricultural area. Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 7 of 15 Response to Comment C ‐ 1.5: The project proposes to have between 5 and 10 one‐way trips per day during construction, and approximately 2 one‐way trips per week thereafter. The project would utilize existing vineyard workers who presently work onsite maintaining and harvesting the existing vineyard. It is not anticipated that future trips related to vineyard operations would result in an increase over existing conditions on Atlas Peak Road. Napa County Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance and condition of Atlas Peak Road. Currently, the County does not require agricultural development to pay a roads fee. Response to Comment C ‐ 1.6: Please see Response to Comments B – 1.5 and 1.6 and memoranda prepared by RCS. Response to Comments C ‐ 1.7 and C ‐1.8: Please see Responses to Comment B ‐ 1.1, C‐1.2, and C‐1.3. Response to Comment C ‐ 1.9: The concerns raised by the Commenter have been adequately addressed in the Proposed IS/MND, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Response to Comment C ‐ 1.10: The Proposed IS/MND includes mitigation measures. Please also see response to Comment B ‐ 1.1. Comment D: Tom Vreeland Response to Comment D – 1.1: Comment noted. Response to Comment D – 1.2: Please see Response to Comment B – 1.5. Response to Comment D – 1.3: Groundwater studies have been prepared as part of the preparation of EIRs for two other large vineyard projects (Circle S Ranch and Walt Ranch Vineyard) within the region. The results of the studies can be found on file at the Napa County Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department or on the County’s website at: http://www.countyofnapa.org/PBES/WaltRanch/. Please also see Responses to Comment B – 1.5, C‐1.2, and C‐1.3. Response to Comment D – 1.4: At the time the Proposed IS/MND was released for public comment, neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet, as well as to property owners extending north to the terminus of Atlas Peak Road were notified of the proposed project, and given 60 days to provide comment. The County received two comment letters from residents along Atlas Peak Road, one located over 4 miles south opposing the project, and the other within 1,000 feet of the project in support of the project. The County is in the process of expanding its groundwater monitoring efforts to better understand our groundwater resources, regularly evaluate trends to identify changes and help ensure sustainable water resources. As a part of this effort, the County is in the process of expanding its voluntary monitoring well network to continue to gain information. Please visit the County’s website for Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 8 of 15 additional information on this effort: http://www.countyofnapa.org/bos/grac/. Also please see response to Comment D – 1.3. Response to Comment D – 1.5: The County notified the City of Napa Water Division, and received a comment letter on the project. However, the County cannot speculate on what the City of Napa’s opinions are on the project. Based on conversations with the City of Napa Water Division, Milliken Reservoir monitoring does not yield results identifying increases in chemicals associated with farming or increases in turbidity that can be directly attributed to vineyard development or winery production. Please refer to Response to Comments B, which addresses the City of Napa comments and this commenter’s questions as to water quality. Response to Comment D ‐ 1.6: The County is not aware of and has no records indicating an increase in applications for new wells or water tanks due to low well water output in the Atlas Peak region. Response to Comment D – 1.7: The County has no records of complaints regarding groundwater quality issues in the Atlas Peak and Capell regions. Response to Comment D – 1.8: Groundwater levels are typically documented at the time a well is drilled, completed, and tested by the well driller. That information is then recorded on the California State Well Completion Report submitted by the driller to both to the County and the California State Department of Water Resources (DWR). Data collected by pumping contractors is not public information, and is not generally required to be reported to any public agency under current state and County regulation. Response to Comment D – 1.9: In 2013, the Groundwater Resources Advisory Committee (or GRAC) issued a report prepared by Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers to address groundwater and surface water monitoring networks and collection of data to distinguish long‐term trends from short‐
term fluctuations, looking at current and historical land uses, and to design a water resource plan and management strategy. Additional widespread monitoring of groundwater levels and quality of residential and vineyard uses would need to be completed in order to determine “regional effects” of vineyard water demand. In areas such as Atlas Peak, the majority of wells are privately owned and would require the landowners to voluntarily allow the County to monitor their wells. Such monitoring of “volunteer” wells by the County could be one way to help document and measure changes or impacts to wells, if any, so that regional trends in water levels and water quality could be established. Please also see Response to Comment D 1.4. Response to Comment D – 1.10: Please refer to Response to Comment B – 1.6 regarding well monitoring conditions. Response to Comment D – 1.11: Please refer to Responses to Comments B‐1.5 and B‐1.6. Response to Comment D – 1.12: The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 5 to 10 one‐way trips per day during construction and installation, for anticipated work crews of between 5 and 15 employees. Vehicular equipment anticipated for project implementation typically includes a tractor/trailer, D9 bulldozers, backhoe, excavator, dump truck, pickup trucks, water truck, and a Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 9 of 15 flatbed truck. After ECPA and vineyard installation, routine vineyard maintenance activities are anticipated to generate approximately 1 to 2 employees per week resulting in approximately 2 one‐way trips per week. Weed control and pruning activities that occur periodically throughout the year are anticipated to generate up to 15 employees resulting in approximately 5 to 10 one‐way trips per day on days when these activities occur. Harvest is anticipated to generate up to 15 employees resulting in approximately 5 to 10 one‐way trips per day, including grape haul trucks. Vehicular equipment anticipated for ongoing vineyard maintenance includes ATVs, tractors, 6 ton grape truck, and passenger cars and/or light trucks. Construction traffic would be intermittent throughout the non‐peak hours generally arriving around 6‐7 a.m. and departing around 2‐3 p.m. Traffic associated with routine vineyard operation and maintenance, including harvest, is anticipated to be intermittent during the non‐peak hours, generally arriving around 6‐7 a.m. and departing around 2‐3 p.m., or arriving around 10 p.m. and departing around 6 a.m. Harvest activities typically commence in between 3‐5 a.m. and end between 2‐3 p.m. The project would generate its largest demand for parking (approximately 2 to 4 vehicles) during the harvest period which lasts approximately 30 days. Response to Comment D – 1.13: The project proposes to utilize the existing site access located at the southwest corner to access proposed Block 5, and a secondary access further north for the remaining blocks (Figures 1 ‐ 2). The driveway locations provide unobstructed site distance of Atlas Peak Road in either direction. The project does not include roadway improvements and/or modifications to either Atlas Peak Road or any other design feature that would result in a hazardous condition. The installation of the vineyard is consistent with the allowed use of the property and other agricultural uses in the area. Response to Comment D – 1.14: The Oak Woodland Retention Area was voluntarily proposed by the applicant, and not required through the CEQA review. The County does not intend to require this area to be permanently protected by way of a deed restriction or similar. However, any future removal of the trees within the retention area and throughout the parcel would be subject to the County’s policies pertaining to oak tree protection. Please also refer to Response to Comments F – 1.2 and 1.3 Response to Comment D‐ 1.15: The existing vineyard was previously reviewed and approved in 2005 under Erosion Control Plan P05‐0254. Based on the information in this file, the existing vineyard area previously consisted of chaparral and grassland. It does not appear any trees were removed. The winery also was reviewed and approved in 2005 (P05‐0110‐UP). The winery is within an underground cave with the exception of an approximately 700 square foot office. Very limited tree removal per the project site plan was allowed to improve the existing access drive. Pursuant to the conditions of approval for the winery use permit, trees removed were limited to those identified for removal on the site plan and were replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Response to Comment D – 1.16: Pursuant to Napa County Code Chapter 18.108, all vineyard development located on slopes in excess of 5% requires County approval of an erosion control plan prepared by a qualified plan preparer. In recognition of the effectiveness of erosion control plans within Napa County, the County’s regulatory requirements have been referenced in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) documents as an effective way to avoid or decrease sediment in the Napa River as required under the Clean Water Act. (The Regional Water Quality Control Board’s TMDL documents are available at: Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 10 of 15 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/napariversedimenttm
dl.shtml) An erosion control plan is the functional equivalent of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Additionally, Napa County General Plan Policy CON‐50c requires that no increase in runoff occur as a result of the proposed project. As required by General Plan Policy CON‐48, the project has demonstrated that there will be no increases in runoff or sedimentation as a result of the project. Please also refer to Responses to Comments B‐1.2 and B‐1.3. Response to Comment D – 1.17: Please refer to Response to Comment C – 1.9 regarding requirements to prepare an EIR. Please refer to Response to Comments B regarding the adequacy of the County review of impacts on groundwater, and refer to Response to Comment D‐1.9 regarding regional water level monitoring. Comment E: Gordon Evans Response to Comment E – 1.1: The commenter states that issues of concerns have been submitted on behalf of Watersheds Alliance for Atlas Peak (WAAP). Response to Comment E – 1.2 through E – 1.18: Please refer to Responses to Comments B – 1.5 and Comments D – 1.1 through 1.17. Response to Comment E‐ 1.19: The topic of carbon sequestration has been addressed on pages 18‐20 of the Proposed IS/MND. Also see Response to Comment F – 1.2. Response to Comment E‐1.20: The commenter asks if the intentional and permanent unique and irreplaceable habitat for flora and fauna has been considered. On Pages 9 through 11 of the Proposed IS/MND, the project proposes mitigation that will avoid special status plant species through the reduction in the proposed development area by 0.6 acres. The 0.6 acre reduction includes a 25 foot no disturbance buffer, which will be flagged by a qualified biologist and left in place through the duration of ground disturbance. Additionally, the removal of habitat has been analyzed, and due to the potential of the project to disturb roosting and nesting habitat for bat and bird species, the project has been conditioned to follow preconstruction surveys that are consistent with bat avoidance measures, as well as avoidance to bird and raptor habitat pursuant to California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. Furthermore, the Department of Fish and Wildlife was provided a copy of the IS/MND and biological report, and no comments were received by the County. Wildlife movement is discussed on Page 12 of the Proposed IS/MND. There is existing wildlife exclusion fencing surrounding the area that encompasses proposed Blocks 1‐4. The only new fencing is proposed to expand existing fencing to compass Blocks 1 and Block 5. However, Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 through avoidance of known special status plant species would result in 0.6 acre reduction of Block 1, which will reduce the amount of fenced area accordingly. Response to Comment E‐1.21: The comment does not relate to the project or its environmental impacts. No response is necessary. Please refer to Response to Comment B‐1.1 regarding implementation and enforcement of erosion control measures. Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 11 of 15 Response to Comment E‐1.22: Please refer to Response to Comment D – 1.17. Comment F: Sierra Club Napa Group Response to Comment F – 1.1: The commenter states they appreciate the extension in time to review the Proposed IS/MND, but wish to request an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. Please refer to Response to Comment D – 1.17. Response to Comment F – 1.2: As indicated in Section VII (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the Proposed IS/MND the County currently does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes specific or mandated methodologies for calculating or otherwise modeling GHG emissions as a result of a proposed project. The County is currently preparing a CAP in consultation with a consulting firm with expertise in GHG emission analysis (Ascent Environmental). Given that there is not an established methodology for calculating or modeling GHG emissions, the County in assessing potential GHG emission impacts has accepted various types of analyses so long as the calculations are based on reasonable and accepted practices and methodologies. The GHG discussion analysis in the Proposed IS/MND represents a reasonable, appropriate, and good faith effort to disclose and quantify the potential GHG emissions associated with construction and ongoing activities of the proposed project. Therefore, the County considers the analysis presented in the Proposed IS/MND as adequate for such purposes, and has reasonably concluded that the proposed project is not expected to result in significant GHG impacts warranting mitigation. Regarding the Leff project, this project was approved over four years ago and had a project setting and conditions different than those of the subject project. Response to Comment F – 1.3: The commenter does not appear to consider the total acres of tree canopy within the parcel in its entirety, but only those trees within the development area and Voluntary Oak Woodland Retention Area. As stated on Page 13 of the IS/MND, 84 acres of the 148 acre parcel are covered by oak woodlands. A tree count conducted by the biologist averaged 30 trees per acre for a total of approximately 2,520 trees. Of the total number of trees, an estimated 571 trees are proposed to be removed as a result of the project, with approximately 1,949 trees retained, including the 890 trees located within the 13.5 acre voluntary oak retention area, all of which is on slopes less than 30 percent slope. Approximately 80 acres of the 148 acre parcel are on slopes less than 30 percent, with the remaining 65 acres on slopes greater than 30 percent and therefore unlikely to be developed due to land use policies which discourage development on slopes greater than 30 percent. These areas in combination with the 13.5‐acre voluntary oak avoidance areas would result in the retention of approximately 78.5 acres, 58 acres of which consist of oak woodlands. Response to Comment F – 1.4: Please refer to Response to Comments B – 1.5 and Comments D – 1.1 through 1.17. Response to Comment F – 1.5: Please refer to Response to Comments B – 1.2 through 1.4. Comment G: Elan Vineyards Response to Comment G – 1.1: The commenter states that Elliott‐Smith Development Inc. has been in the business of developing and managing hillside vineyards in Napa County for 18 years, and believes Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 12 of 15 the applicant to be a responsible and excellent steward of the land. The commenter is supportive of the proposed project. Comment H: Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe, APC (on behalf of Living Rivers Council (LRC)) Response to Comment H – 1.1: This introductory comment acknowledges the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND and objects to County approval of the Project. See Response to Comment H ‐ 1.2 through 1.6. Response to Comment H – 1.2 through 1.4: Please refer to Response to Comments B ‐ 1.1 ‐1.6. Response to Comment H – 1.5 and 1.6: The commenter cites the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance provisions. A groundwater permit is not required for an “agricultural development project” such as the Kongsgaard project (Napa County Code Section 13.15.040(A)). Regarding the Water Availability Analysis (“WAA”) policy document adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 12, 2015, the analysis in the Proposed IS/MND and submitted reports meets the requirements of the WAA. Regarding the MST, please refer to RCS memoranda dated October 1, 2015 and November 13, 2015 and to Responses to Comments B – 1.5 and Comments D – 1.1 through 1.17. Comment I: Jim Wilson Response to Comment I – 1.1: This introductory comment acknowledges the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND and states that the IS/MND fails to adequately assess or mitigate potential Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with the project. Please also see Response to Comment B – 1.3. Response to Comment I – 1.2: The commenter provides a general statement regarding the number of trees proposed for removal and the resulting reduction in carbon sinks, presently and in the future. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment I – 1.3 through 1.6: Generally, the comments are personal opinion, general in nature, and are not directly related to the proposed project or project specific impacts. Furthermore, no new or additional evidence specific to the project or the Proposed IS/MND has been provided that demonstrates the potential level of GHG impacts would occur beyond what is identified in the Proposed IS/MND. Regarding County regulations, goals, and policies, as discussed in Section X (Land Use and Planning) of the Proposed IS/MND, the proposed project was found to be consistent with applicable County regulations, policies, and goals. With respect to the future development of 12,500 acres of vineyard identified in the County General Plan, see Response to Comment I ‐ 1.11. Response to Comment I – 1.7: Please refer to Response to Comment I – 1.11. Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 13 of 15 Response to Comment I – 1.8: The preservation of oak woodlands pursuant to General Plan Policy CON‐24 is neither intended to mitigate or otherwise compensate for potential GHG impacts of a proposed project, nor is it intended to be surrogate for the quantification of potential air quality or GHG emissions. The policy is specific to biological resources (i.e. the removal and retention of oak woodland). Please also refer to Response to Comment F – 1.3. Response to Comment I – 1.9: As indicated in Section VII (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the Proposed IS/MND the County currently does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes specific or mandated methodologies for calculating or otherwise modeling GHG emissions as a result of a proposed project. The County is currently preparing a CAP in consultation with a consulting firm with expertise in GHG emission analysis (Ascent Environmental). Given there is not an established methodology for calculating or modeling GHG emissions, in assessing potential GHG emission impacts the County has accepted various types of analyses so long as the calculations are based on reasonable and accepted practices and methodologies. The GHG analysis represents a reasonable, appropriate, and good faith effort to disclose and quantify the potential GHG emissions associated with construction and ongoing activities of the proposed project. Therefore, the County considers the analysis presented in the Proposed IS/MND as adequate for such purposes, and has reasonably concluded that the proposed project is not expected to result in significant GHG impacts warranting mitigation. The Proposed IS/MND describes and discloses GHG emissions associated with construction activities of the proposed project that are primarily associated with: vegetation removal (including trees, woody debris and shrubs), soil preparation, and, emissions associated with construction equipment and vehicles utilized for vineyard development. The term ‘one time construction emissions’ is utilized to separate these potential emissions from ongoing emissions associated with vineyard operations and maintenance (including farm equipment and worker vehicles) and loss of sequestration. As such the Proposed IS/MND adequately discloses potential GHG emissions associated with the entirety of the project (i.e. with construction activities and ongoing operations). Based on this analysis the County reasonably concluded that the proposed project is not expected to result in a significant impact associated with GHG emissions, consistent with the Initial Study checklist (Appendix G) pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15022(a)(2) and Napa County’s local procedures for implementing CEQA. Furthermore, no new or additional evidence has been provided that demonstrates the potential level of impact associated with GHG emissions would occur beyond what is identified in the Proposed IS/MND. Response to Comment I ‐ 1.10: Regarding a comparison between the GHG emissions assessment conducted for this project and the GHG assessment for the Leff Vineyard Conversion project (#P09‐
00396‐ECPA), the two assessments are site‐ and project‐ specific assessments that utilize assumptions based on the specific project components and specific site characteristics, therefore comparing the two analyses is not necessary to quantify and disclose potential GHG emissions and impacts associated with this project. The comment does not provide any new or additional evidence that demonstrates the potential level of GHG impacts would occur beyond what is identified in the Proposed IS/MND for this project, therefore no further response is necessary. Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 14 of 15 Regarding alternative development areas, Mitigated Negative Declarations do not typically include project alternatives and Pursuant to CEQA project alternatives are not a required element of Mitigated Negative Declarations. Please also see Responses to Comment F – 1.2 and 1.3. Response to Comment I – 1.11: As described in the Proposed IS/MND the Napa County General Plan anticipates the conversion of land to agricultural use, and the program‐level EIR for the 2008 General Plan Update analyzed the impacts of up to 12,500 acres of vineyard development between 2005 and 2030. In the analysis specifically, and in the County’s view generally, the conversion of land to agricultural use would constitute a potentially significant impact only if there were resulting significant impacts on any of the 17 resource categories addressed in a given project’s environmental analysis, as done specifically for the Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion Project’s Proposed IS/MND. Cumulative effects of this project in context with potential future vineyard development within the Milliken Reservoir Drainage (6,141 acres), based on conservative estimates utilizing previous trends, were described in Sections IX (hydrology and Water Quality) and XVII (Mandatory Findings of Significance) of the Proposed IS/MND and were found to be less than significant. Furthermore, the cumulative analysis of the Proposed IS/MND and the General Plan EIR do not take into consideration other site specific limitations which are expected to reduce the anticipated future potential vineyard development in the Milliken Reservoir Drainage and County overall. These factors include constraints such as water courses requiring setbacks, wetlands, other water features, rare plants and/or animal species, and cultural resources. Nor do they take into account other factors influencing vineyard development, such as sun exposure, soil type, water availability, or economic factors, as well as the CEQA process itself. Response to Comment I – 1.12: All plant species observed onsite are included in the Biological Resources Survey prepared by Kjeldsen Biological Consulting, dated August 2013 (Exhibit 1 of the Proposed IS/MND). Comment J: Provencher & Flatt, LLP (on behalf of Defenders of East Bay Watersheds) Response to Comment J – 1.1: The commenter states their letter is submitted on behalf Defenders of East Bay Watersheds. Response to Comment J – 1.2: Please refer to Response to Comments H – 1.1 through 1.6. Response to Comment J – 1.3: Please refer to Response to Comments B – 1.1 through 1.6. Response to Comment J – 1.4: Please refer to Response to Comments B – 1.5 and Comments D – 1.3 through 1.10. Response to Comment J – 1.5 and 1.6: Please refer to Response to Comments B – 1.1 through 1.6. Response to Comment J – 1.7 through 1.9: Please refer to Response to Comments I – 1.1 through 1.12 Response to Comment J – 1.10: See responses to 1.6 ‐ 1.9. Response to Comments – Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion ‐ #P14‐00069‐ECPA Page 15 of 15 Comment A
1.1
Comment B
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
Cont.
1.4
1.5
1.6
Comment C
Cahill, Kelli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robert Wallin BRE#01492251 <[email protected]>
Thursday, May 07, 2015 7:39 PM
Cahill, Kelli
Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion Project
Categories:
Red Category
Ms Cahill,
I am a long time resident of Napa County and very concerned about the future quality of life in our
beautiful County. I am most concerned about the cumulative effect of proposed land conversions of
hillside open space to vineyards and adding new wineries with both their permitted and non-permitted
1.1
retail sales, events and operations. This includes non-permitted wine volume production, retail and
special events, construction and other related violations that affect the environment and neighbors’
quality of life. The intentional violation of many with no or very little oversight and enforcement by the
County has been, currently is, and most certainly of great concern for our future quality of life and
safety.
The immediate case in point, is the Kongsgaard Vineyard Conversion. Below are a list of questions
and issues that is felt need to be addressed:
1. What is the accumulative effect of a new vineyard conversion project when considering the
1.2
large already approved Circle S project and the proposed Walt Ranch Vineyard project and the
current related concerns:
a. Depleting the falling water aquifer,
1.3
b. Contaminating and polluting the Milliken Watershed,
1.4
c. The potential of noise from increased traffic and damage to Atlas Peak Rd.
d. Public safety concerns for motorists, cyclists, hikers on the very narrow, steep & curvy 1.5
Atlas Peak Rd.
e. How will taking additional water from the aquifer affect neighbors up to nine miles below
the proposed project? Many have or currently are in the process of dealing with loss of 1.6
well water and the effects of the above concerns.
f. What is going to be the County’s procedures for oversight to ensure compliance with the
1.7
permitting process, enforcement or permitted requirements, and appropriate
punishment for any noncompliance?
2. It is felt that just because the subject project is relatively small to Circle S or Walt, Kongsgaad
and all future projects must be held to the same standard for development and compliance. It
1.8
has been demonstrated that may changes need to be initiated by the County to protect the
public, area neighbors and ensure operations are being performed within required permitted
operations.
3. To ensure the above concerns are appropriately addressed, it has been suggested an
environment Impact study be required and after completed, provide for additional public
comment about any concerns.
1.9
4. It is also felt that a future approval be conditional with specific conditions to me met,
remediation required when there are unexpected negative repercussions, and the disciplinary 1.10
action by the County for noncompliance.
1
Comment D
May 9, 2015
County of Napa, Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department
Attn: Kelli Cahill, Project Planner
1195 Third Street-Suite 210
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Konsgaard Wine LLC MND response
Application: ECPA P14-00069
From: Tom Vreeland, 2391 Atlas Peak Rd.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the referenced application.
It is with some reticence that I am submitting my comments. I believe in a
property owner’s rights to do whatever they wish with their land, so long as it is
within the scope and intent of current laws and regulations. It is irrelevant
whether I agree with another land owners intentions for their land. My first
impression reviewing the project documents was that it is an innocuous project
that meets or exceeds current regulations. However, upon reflection, I felt that
there were too many unanswered questions which warrant further investigation.
My issues are strictly related to potential negative impact to surrounding land
owners by this project and compliance with regulations, as follows:
1.1
Water:
1) Has the cumulative impact of the approved, yet not planted, Circle S
Ranch vineyard and this project been considered or analyzed related to
available water?
a. Has the cumulative impact upon the MST been considered or
analyzed? The project does lie uphill within the MST water shed.
2) Have studies been completed regarding long term water level trends in
aquifers in the Atlas Peak region including well water levels over a period
of many years for wells at all altitudes in the Atlas Peak region?
3) Have property owners near the project been asked if current winery and
vineyard operations have had a negative impact on their wells?
4) Has the City of Napa been formally notified as to this project and been
asked for their opinion as to impact upon Milliken Reservoir?
a. Has the water quality of the Milliken Reservoir been negatively
impacted by any current vineyard and winery operations either in
terms of erosion run off or chemicals from farming?
b. Has the cumulative future impact on Milliken Reservoir by all
approved projects been considered with regards to erosion run off
and chemicals used in farming operations?
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
5) Have permit applications for new wells or water holding tanks required
due to low well water output in the Atlas Peak region been analyzed?
Have trends in permits been reviewed to track there is an increasing
number of requests and to note decreasing water levels or capacity in
wells?
6) Has the well water quality in the Atlas Peak and Capell regions been
adversely impacted by water consumed for farming (depletion) or by
chemicals used in farming operations?
7) Well servicing companies typically note well water levels during service
calls. If possible, has this data been collected and analyzed for the Atlas
Peak region?
8) What studies or tests can be performed to determine impact to wells at a
lower altitude in the region due to the cumulative effects of vineyard water
demand, including approved yet not constructed vineyards?
9) Well monitoring is noted in the MND without any specific requirements.
Monitoring should be required along with guidelines. If monitoring is to be
implemented, it should be for the duration of the water use, not a limited
time, and there should be specific guidelines. This means something
along the lines of if water levels drop to a given level, water pumping
ceases. Monitoring without such guidelines is meaningless – you watch
water levels drop until wells go dry. Monitoring should include wells both
on and off project site.
a. If offsite wells are to be monitored, wells at a lower elevation,
Circle Oaks and Atlas Peak, should be included both in terms of
monitoring and guidelines.
10) If the project is approved and moves forward, will water pumping be
stopped if an abnormal number of wells in the Atlas Peak region go dry or
have other problems?
a. If water quality in Milliken Reservoir degrades in a manner
attributed to farming, will farming on this project be ceased?
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
Traffic
1) Traffic studies referenced are from 2005 or earlier. I do not think these
studies are still valid today. I have lived on Atlas Peak since 1997 and
have seen the traffic steadily increase year by year. New traffic studies
should be considered.
1.12
a. Traffic studies present annualized data which is deceptive. Road
traffic varies per time of year. Harvest season causes a significant
increase in traffic including truck traffic. Studies should include
traffic impact at peak periods.
2) It should be noted that trucks larger than a conventional pick up cannot
navigate many of the turns on Atlas Peak without crossing the center line.
1.13
This is a dangerous situation considering many of the sharp turns are
virtually blind. I have personally encountered large trucks too wide for the
narrow lanes navigating the road hauling heavy equipment without pilot
vehicles to warn oncoming traffic. Pilot vehicles should be required for any 1.13
Cont.
vehicle that cannot stay in its own lane traveling the road.
Trees
1) Will permanent protection restrictions be imposed for the 800 trees that
1.14
are retained?
2) Were trees removed to create the existing 6.1 acres of vines or the
winery? If either of these were built after the regulation mandating
minimum tree retention, the trees destroyed should be considered in the 1.15
required tree retention calculation. The vineyard and winery (not the
home) are agriculture related and calculations should be based upon tree
count at time of regulation adoption with consideration for loss due to
natural causes.
Erosion
1) Does Napa County’s requirements for erosion control meet or exceed the
State of California or other relevant agency’s current standards?
1.16
a. Are new standards or practices anticipated being adopted which
should be incorporated in this project?
Conclusion
If questions or concerns raised here are left unanswered or not addressed, I
question how the project can move forward with an MND. An EIR is an
appropriate step to insure that these concerns and concerns of others are
addressed.
I also feel that it should be determined whether the aquifers of the Atlas Peak
region are in a state of depletion or being sustained at current levels prior to any
further developments being approved which would draw water from said aquifers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Tom Vreeland
1.17
Comment E
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.16
Cont.
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
Comment F
Napa Group,
PO Box 5531
Napa, CA 94581
Kelli Cahill, Planner III
Napa County Planning, Building Environmental Services Department
1195 Third Street, Napa, CA 94559 : [email protected] Re: Kongsgaard project, Erosion Control Plan
#P14-00069-ECPA.
May 12, 2015
Dear Ms. Cahill:
We are appreciative of the extension granted for public comment on the
Kongsgaard Erosion Control Plan, which has been very helpful to our efforts to
review the document.
We wish to request a full Environmental Impact Report instead of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Kongsgaard project, Erosion Control Plan
#P14-00069-ECPA.
1.1
The Draft Initial Study fails to answer several questions.
Greenhouse Gas Impacts. CEQA requires the measurement of both the direct
effects of carbon sequestration loss and the indirect effects of carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide biogenic greenhouse gas emissions associated with
the conversion of native forest land to non-forest use.
The 2011 Leff Vineyard project was the first approved in Napa County with an
Erosion Control Plan that addressed forest land conversion biogenic GHG
emissions. Leff measured all oak woodlands conversion CO2,CH4 and N2O
emissions, including for trees, associated flora and soil.
The current Napa County General Plan projected 12,500 vineyard acres to be
1
1.2
developed through 2030, and stated that this would result in “significant
unavoidable effects” on GHG emissions. Sierra Club continues to maintain, as
we did in our attorney’s letter re the Leff project (which is also attached to this email), that it is not appropriate for the county to approve projects based on MND’s
that fail to analyze and mitigate each project’s contribution to the cumulative
considerable effect of the overall 12,500 acres of development.
1.2
Cont.
The lack of a Climate Action Plan, which was envisioned by the General Plan
Update, does not relieve the County and individual projects from the
responsibility for assessing and mitigating for GHG impacts. The County cannot
continue to sidestep the responsibility to consider and mitigate the cumulative
impacts of wildland conversion on GHG emissions.
Mitigation for Tree Loss. The Draft Initial Study states that 861 trees will be
preserved in a Voluntary Oak Woodland Retention Area. This is less than the
2:1 ratio required for the projected loss of over 553 trees. The Study does not
specify any plan, such as a conservation easement, to assure permanent
protection of the retained trees.
1.3
Furthermore, it does not demonstrate, as required by the Compliance Offset
Protocol, US Forest Projects, adopted by the California Air Resources Board
whether the retained woodland areas are actually under threat of development.
For example, are the woods on less than 30% slope? Are soils suitable for
farming?
Goundwater Impacts. No substantial water analysis is provided. This proposed
expansion is located on the headwaters of Milliken Creek, which feeds the
depleted MST aquifer. Furthermore, two much larger incomplete projects are
nearby. The Circle S project, already approved, has yet to be completed. The
Walt Ranch project EIR has yet to be finalized. Together, these two projects total
515 acres. Water analysis for Kongsgaard needs to take into account the
cumulative effects of these three projects on groundwater.
1.4
Erosion Impacts. Conclusions regarding erosion reached in this ECP using the
Universal Soil Loss Equation are suspect. Consultation with soils experts inform
us that it is quite unlikely that planting vineyards in place of woodlands results in
net decrease in soil erosion. This analysis needs further in-depth examination.
1.5
Thank you for your consideration of these remarks.
Nancy Tamarisk
Chair, Napa Sierra Club
2
Comment G
1.1
Comment H
Law Offices of
THOMAS N. LIPPE, APC
201 Mission Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: 415-777-5604
Facsimile: 415-777-5606
Email: [email protected]
May 14, 2015
By Mail and Email to: [email protected]
Ms Kelli Cahill, Project Planner
County of Napa
Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department
Engineering and Conservation Division
1195 Third Street, Suite 210
Napa, CA 94599-3092
Re: Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine
LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion: Agricultural Erosion Control Plan (ECPA)
#P14-00069-ECPA
Dear Ms. Cahill:
This office represents Living Rivers Council (“LRC”) with respect to the Initial Study and
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak
Vineyard Conversion: Agricultural Erosion Control Plan (ECPA) #P14-00069-ECPA (“Project”).
LRC objects to County approval of the Project for the reasons described in this letter and the
attached letters from Greg Kamman (Exhibit 6), which is incorporated herein by reference.
1.1
I am submitting with this letter, in both hard copy and electronically on CD, a total of twentyfour (24) exhibits cited in this letter or the May 14, 2015, letter from Greg Kamman, which are also
identified at the end of this letter.
1.
There Is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument That the Project Will Have
Significant Effects with Respect to Increased Stream Sedimentation in the Napa River
Drainage and Associated Impacts on the Aquatic Ecosystem.
Over the last 10 years, environmental organizations1 in Napa County have repeatedly
demonstrated, to Napa County in comments on previous vineyard conversions projects, and in
comments to the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board on the Napa River
Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), that implementing projects in compliance with the
Conservation Regulations may cause significant, adverse sediment impacts on the Napa River
watershed. The principal mechanism causing this harm is the installation of engineered drainage
facilities to reduce surface erosion. These facilities have the unintended consequence of routing
rainfall off the site more efficiently, thereby increasing the amount of downstream runoff. The
increased runoff, in turn, causes downcutting of the stream beds (also known as channel incision)
1
The Sierra Club and Earth Defense for the Environment Now (“EDEN”).
1.2
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 2
which both directly moves more sediment downstream, and causes stream banks to collapse and add
their sediments to the stream flow as well.
These organizations retained the services of experts in the field, including Dr. Robert Curry,2
to comment on a number of vineyard conversion projects in the Napa River watershed and the
Erosion Control Plans (“ECPs”) prepared by vineyard owners pursuant to the Napa County
Conservation Regulations. These experts consistently found that the ECPs do not accurately
evaluate or adequately mitigate impacts associated with increases in runoff from the changes in land
use attendant to vineyard conversions. Again, the problem is that the focus of the ECPs used in the
Napa County program is to reduce surface erosion, and the methods used to do so, including crossslope ditches, drop inlets and underground pipes, concentrate and rout rainfall off of the property as
quickly as possible before it can erode the surface. The result is to increase the rate of runoff and
peak discharge to tributary streams, causing channel incision, which causes destabilization of stream
and river banks which then collapse and contribute additional sediment to the streams system. This
in turn lowers stream and river beds, separating the channels from their natural flood plain, which
has many diverse and well-documented negative impacts on the riparian environment. (Exhibit 4,
pp 9-10 [AR 710-711.)
As explained by Dr. Curry in his review of the Conservation Regulations in 2000:
The approach of the Napa County ordinances is fundamentally incorrect and cannot
protect either public health and safety or long-term land productivity. The existing
ordinances seem to assume that by attempting to capture sediments from upland
vineyard conversion areas, downstream cumulative effects are reduced to
insignificance. This is not correct. Increased upland sediment yields, while
important, are less hazardous to Napa Valley than are the changes in runoff timing,
volumes, and rates. Increased runoff does have cumulative downstream effects
through changes in rates of runoff and frequency of runoff events of a given
magnitude. These changes are likely to be a significant factor in changing sediment
loads in the main Napa River through changes in stability of its side tributaries.
(Exhibit 1, p. 2 [AR 8930].)
As explained by Dr. Curry in his comments on the Napa River Sediment TMDL, erosion
control measures approved by the County and implemented in compliance with its Conservation
Regulations have not been able to reduce surface erosion without simultaneously causing peak flow
increases that lead to sedimentation caused by channel incision:
[M]y prior extensive reports and analyses of specific conversion projects in Napa
County have all demonstrated that you cannot simultaneously reduce sediment yield
2
Dr. Curry’s credentials are set forth in Exhibit 3.
1.2
Cont.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 3
with engineering structures and flow routing while maintaining or reducing peak flow
runoff. [...] In my opinion, it may be possible to implement the TMDL and meet its
goals with local control, but that has not been demonstrated to date and the bulk of
the evidence suggests that in the specific case of Napa County, there is an entire
land-use engineering industry that has not been able to deal with impacts of peak
flow increases associated with land conversions.
The source-area erosion control technology promoted by the consultant community
in Napa County is good and seems to be improving through time. But the
engineering solutions for headwater source-area sediment yield reduction and/or local
capture of sediments almost invariably result in greater off-site, downstream,
concentration of runoff that then leads to bank and streambed erosion to balance
sediment load with the increased stream power. It seems that recommendations for
more and larger-capacity on-site runoff detention are largely ignored in favor of
reduced sediment concentration in that runoff.
(Exhibit 2, p. 1.)
As explained by Dr. Curry, the contribution of increased runoff from installation of
engineered drainage facilities designed to bring new vineyards into compliance with the Napa
County Conservation Regulations is cumulatively significant:
1.2
Cont.
The recommended structural drainage facilities such as culverts, lined ditches, and
drainage facilities such as culverts, lined ditches, and drainage channels as applied
over large areas of Napa Valley will reduce sediment input from uplands but will
exacerbate off-site channel and stream-bed erosion through increased yield of runoff.
The public and the fish in the Napa River are directly impacted by the cumulative
downstream impacts of increased frequency and duration of flood flows in the main
river and its primary tributaries.
(Exhibit 2, p. 3 [AR 9565].)
The Regional Board concurred with Dr. Curry that increased runoff from vineyard
development is causing significant increases in sediment supply to the Napa River, stating:
We concur that increased runoff from vineyard development is causing significant
increases in sediment supply to the mainstem Napa River through enlargement of
headwater channels, gully formation, and associated shallow landslides.
(Exhibit 5, p. 55-56 [AR 515-516].)
Indeed, a Regional Water Board staff memorandum acknowledges that erosion control
measures on hillslope vineyards cause stream channel erosion:
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 4
Where engineered drainage systems are used on hillslope sites to capture sheetflow
and discharge it through subsurface drainage pipes, and where these same vineyards
are developed on soft sedimentary bedrock and/or were forested prior to
development, we often found that storm runoff from vineyards was concentrated in
time and/or space, appearing to contribute to active bed and bank erosion in
headwaters channels at or near the point(s) of discharge from the vineyard.
(Exhibit 6 [emphasis added].)
The Regional Water Board final Staff Report for the TMDL also discusses channel incision,
stating:
We hypothesize that the current episode of channel down-cutting (channel incision)
is in response to the following disturbances including: a) a suite of direct alterations
to the river channel and/or its floodplain (e.g., levee building, channel straightening,
filling of side channels, removal of debris jams, historical gravel mining, and
dredging); b) construction of four large tributary dams between 1939 and 1959 that
capture runoff and coarse sediment delivered from approximately 20 percent of the
land area in the watershed; and c) land-cover changes that have increased peak flows
in the river (e.g., vineyards, rural residences, commercial buildings, and roads). Each
of the above actions may contribute to down-cutting either through increasing the
capacity of the river to transport sediment or by decreasing its supply of coarse
sediment (e.g., tributary dam construction).
(Exhibit 4, p. 39 [AR 740].)
Similarly, the Regional Board Staff Report identifies historical factors; “watershed
development” in general, and direct channel alterations as the causes of channel incision, stating:
As the watershed was developed, upslope disturbances of vegetation and soil likely
increased runoff rates and sediment input to channels. These historical and recent
impacts, in combination with direct alterations of channels and adjacent flood basins,
have destabilized channels where they traverse alluvial fan and valley deposits. This
has led to active and rapid channel down-cutting and accompanying bank erosion that
is widespread along Napa River and lower reaches of many of its tributaries today.
(Exhibit 4, p. 17 [AR 1718]
The Regional Board Environmental Document for the Napa River Sediment TMDL further
states:
“[a] suite of management actions have likely caused or contributed to channel
incision, including (but not necessarily limited to): levee building, large tributary
1.2
Cont.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 5
dams, straightening of some mainstem channel reaches, filling of side channels,
historical gravel mining, dredging to reduce flood risk, and intensive removal of large
woody debris.”3
1.2
Cont.
(Exhibit 4, p. 91 [AR 792].)
The MND recognizes that anadromous salmonid species listed as threatened or endangered
are found in Milliken Creek and the Napa River below Milliken Reservoir stating:
the project site is located within the sub-watershed of the Milliken Reservoir and
Capell Creek – Upper Reach Drainages, which have not been designated as critical
habitat for steelhead due in part to the presence of barriers to upstream migration by
anadromous fish; however, Milliken Reservoir which drains into the Napa River,
which has been designated as critical habitat for steelhead and is located within the
Napa River watershed. According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region’s Napa River Sediment total maximum daily load (TMDL)
and Habitat Enhancement Plan Staff Report dated September 2009, the watershed
stewardship, along with several others have developed management plans and/or
have implemented, or are planning, large-scale projects to enhance water quality and
stream-riparian habitat with this sub-watershed. The Napa River is currently listed
as an impaired body of water for nutrients, pathogens, and sediment under Section
303 9(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Historically, the construction of large dams
and other impoundment structures between 1924 and 1959 on major tributaries in the
eastern Napa River watershed and northern headwater areas of the Napa River has
affected sediment transport processes into the mainstem of the Napa River by
reducing the delivery of the coarse load sediments to the river (Stillwater Science and
W. Dietrich, 2002). However, the finer sediments that are not trapped by dams, are
negatively affecting salmonid habitat by reducing gravel permeability potentially
affecting special status fish species (Stillwater Science and W. Dietrich, 2002). In
response, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay District has
released a technical report that proposes a TMDL for the Napa River, which calls for
reductions in the amount of fine sediment deposits into the watershed to improve
water quality and maintain beneficial uses of the river, including spawning and
rearing habitat for salmonid species.
(MND, p. 24.)
3
See also Exhibit 4, p 51 [AR 752] (“Almost all incision is found to be anthropogenic based on the
very high estimated rate [of incision], and initiation during historical period, which is coincident with
a period of intensive levee building and dam construction, filling of flood basins adjacent to
channels, navigational dredging, intensive removal of debris jams, and historical gravel mining and
channel straightening.”).
1.3
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 6
Remarkably, however, the MND does not assess impacts on anadromous fish at all. Perhaps
this omission is based on its statement that “No special status animal species were observed on the
project site during any of the surveys conducted by Kjeldsen Biological Consulting.” (MND, p. 11.)
The MND’s basis for concluding the project will not have significant impacts on Chinook
salmon and steelhead is flawed. As discussed above, the Project will cause increased sediment
loading of the stream system in the Milliken Creek watershed and from there to Milliken Reservoir
as a result of concentrating and discharging increased runoff to upland stream channels. The MND
recognizes that Milliken Reservoir traps coarse sediments, but that fine sediments pass through.
MND, p. 24.)
The recently issued Draft EIR for the nearby Walt Ranch Vineyard Project elaborates on this
point, stating:
Dams that trap coarse sediment in the area have not significantly reduced the degree
to which finer sediments are being delivered to the mainstem Napa River and its
tributaries. As a result of this fine sedimentation, habitats for steelhead, Chinook
salmon, and California freshwater shrimp, which rely on more gravel substrate in the
river, have been negatively affected from reduced gravel permeability. (Stillwater
Sciences and W. Dietrich, 2002). The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) has released a technical report that proposes a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Napa River that calls for substantial reductions
in the amount of fine sediment deposits into the watershed to improve water quality
and maintain beneficial uses of the river, including spawning and rearing habitat for
salmonid species.
(Exhibit 23 [DEIR 4.6-8 [pdf 341]].)
The Regional Water Board’s final Staff Report for the TMDL describes the impacts of fine
sediment loading, stating:
The limiting factors study documented two adverse impacts of sediment pollution on
steelhead and salmon habitat. The first impact is due to a high concentration of fine
sediment deposited in the streambed, which adversely affects spawning and rearing
habitat for both species. The second impact is due to channel incision, which occurs
primarily in the mainstem and lower tributaries and affects Chinook salmon to a
much greater extent (because most steelhead spawn further upstream in the
tributaries). These sediment-related impacts are discussed below:
• Documentation of low permeability values at potential spawning sites for salmon
indicates a high concentration of fine sediment in the streambed. Successful salmon
and steelhead reproduction depends on adequate water flow through gravel in order
for eggs to hatch and larvae to grow. If fine sediment clogs the gravels, flow is very
1.3
Cont.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 7
slow, egg mortality can be very high, and few young fish (fry) may emerge from the
streambed. Low gravel permeability is predicted to cause high rates of mortality
between spawning and emergence at potential spawning sites in Napa River and its
tributaries.
• High concentration of fine sediment in the streambed also can cause significant
decreases in growth and survival of juvenile salmonids during freshwater rearing by
reducing availability of vulnerable prey species and increasing activity level,
aggressive behavior, and attacks between juvenile salmonids (Suttle et al., 2004).
• Juvenile steelhead use open spaces between clusters of large cobbles and/or
boulders as winter refuges from predators and high flows (Hartman, 1965; Chapman
and Bjorn, 1969; and Meyer and Griffith, 1997). As the concentration of fine
sediment in streambed increases, quality of winter rearing habitat is significantly
diminished with consequent adverse impacts to survival.
• Scour of spawning gravel during commonly occurring peak flows (e.g., bankfull)
can be a significant source of mortality to incubating eggs and larvae of salmon and
trout species (McNeil, 1966; Montgomery et al., 1996). Human actions that increase
the rate of sediment supply, and/or cause it to become finer, will cause the streambed
to become finer, facilitating an increase in mean depth and/or spatial extent of scour
(Carling, 1987).
1.3
Cont.
• Active and rapid channel incision in mainstem Napa River and lower reaches of its
major tributaries has greatly reduced quantity of gravel bars, riffles, side channels,
and sloughs, and has greatly decreased frequency of inundation of adjacent flood
plains. These features and processes provide essential spawning and juvenile rearing
habitat for Chinook salmon, which reside primarily in the mainstem Napa River.
Therefore, channel incision appears to be a key factor limiting Chinook salmon run
size. Channel incision, and associated bank erosion in areas underlain by thick
alluvial deposits, also appears to be a significant source of sediment delivery to Napa
River. Shallow groundwater stored in the valley floor adjacent to incised channel
reaches is more rapidly depleted during the spring and summer, causing spring and
summer baseflow persistence to be reduced, and the quantity and quality of cold
pools (e.g., those fed by groundwater inputs) to be diminished.
(Exhibit 4, pp. 8-9.)
In his analysis of sedimentation impacts of this Project, Mr. Kamman identifies two critical
analytic errors. First, the MND’s purported negative value for estimated increases in net surface
erosion simply masks the fact the Project will have positive net increases in sediment discharge from
surface erosion in the Milliken Creek watershed. Second, the MND fails to assess the sedimentation
effects caused by increases in peak flows attributable to the entire project, specifically the engineered
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 8
drainage facilities that reduce the “time of concentration” of runoff and thereby concentrate channel
destabilizing flows in channels below the Project. (See Exhibit 7, pp. 7-8.)
Milliken Creek below Milliken Reservoir provides important habitat for Chinook salmon and
steelhead (see Exhibits 8 and 11) that will be degraded by increased fine sediment generated by the
Project (see Exhibit 8 [Higgins].) A 2003 report found high densities of steelhead in lower Milliken
Creek below the dam. (See Exhibits 8, 19, 20.)
With respect to impacts on fish and the aquatic ecosystems above Milliken dam, Milliken
Creek above the dam supports a resident population of steelhead (i.e., rainbow) trout (see Exhibits
1.3
8, 20). This is important because:
Cont.
Today, many San Francisco Bay tributaries have very limited habitat and salmon and
steelhead populations (Leidy et al. 2003). Therefore, there is no source of colonists
to re-start the Napa River steelhead population in the event that the local population
is lost, which makes protection of Milliken Creek’s lower and upper watershed
steelhead populations even more important. Conversely, genes from native Napa
River steelhead could be used to restore other SF Bay tributaries if they recover in the
future.
(Exhibit 8, p. 15.) The Initial Study/MND’s assumption these impacts are less than significant is
unsupported for the reasons discussed by Patrick Higgins (Exhibit 8).
Also, the cumulative sedimentation impacts of this Project with the Walt Ranch Project may
be significant, considering that both Projects will increase fine sediment discharge to Milliken Creek
and the Napa River. (See Exhibit 24 [Letter from Greg Kamman to Tom Lippe re Walt Ranch
Vineyard EIR, November 20, 2014].)
In sum, the Initial Study and MND fails to conduct an adequate investigation of the extent
to which the Project may have significant sediment related effects on special status fish species both 1.4
below and above Milliken Reservoir. “CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on
government rather than the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible
environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies
in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a
wider range of inferences.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.)
2.
The Project May Have a Significant Effect on Groundwater Resources; Therefore, a
Negative Declaration Is Insufficient and Preparation and Certification of an Environmental
Impact Report Is Required.
The County has a Groundwater Ordinance which requires this Project applicant to obtain the
County’s approval of a groundwater permit for this Project. While the DEIR notes the existence of
this ordinance, it does not disclose the fact that the Project will require a groundwater permit.
1.5
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 9
The Groundwater Ordinance requires that the application:
In the form of a Water Availability Analysis-Phase I, as outlined in the Department
of Public Works Water Availability Policy Report, as it may be amended from time
to time, provide sufficient information and supporting documentation to enable the
director of public works to determine whether it is likely the new water system,
improvement or addition might significantly affect the impacted groundwater basin
within Napa County, whether or not the proposed improvement or new system may
be reasonably expected to adversely affect reasonable and beneficial uses of
groundwater, interfere with surface water flows, or cause other adverse changes to
the physical environment adversely affecting the impacted groundwater basin.
(County Code § 13.15.060.D.)
The Ordinance also provides:
The director of public works shall submit its comments in the form of a written
appraisal of the application to the director. That appraisal shall assess the potential
for significant negative impacts on the affected groundwater table, and assess
potential adverse effects on reasonable and beneficial uses of groundwater,
interference with surface water flows, or other adverse changes to the physical
environment.
The director shall only approve a groundwater permit after making any necessary
environmental determination and concluding, based on substantial evidence in the
record, that the new water system, improvement or addition would not significantly
affect the impacted groundwater basin in Napa County. In making this
determination, the director shall consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:
impact on the affected groundwater table; adverse effects on the reasonable and
beneficial uses of groundwater; implementation of Best Management Practices; or
other adverse changes to the physical environment.
(County Code § 13.15.070.B, C.).
To implement this ordinance, on May 12, 2015, the County adopted an updated “Water
Availability Analysis (WAA) - Guidance Document” (“Updated WAA Guidance”). (See Exhibit 16.)
The Updated WAA Guidance establishes thresholds of significance, called “Water Use Criteria,”
for judging whether new water uses subject to CEQA may have significant effects. For the Milliken
Sarco Tulocay (“MST’) aquifer, the Updated WAA Guidance establishes “Water Use Criteria” of
“0.3 acre-feet per acre per year or no net increase, whichever is less.” If a new water use is below
this criterion, the County assumes the use will not have a significant adverse effect on the aquifer.
The “0.3 acre-feet per acre per year” is the County’s longstanding “fair use” threshold that
1.5
Cont.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 10
this writer has criticized in connection with many previous projects. The “no net increase, whichever
is less” standard is new.
1.5
Cont.
The County’s fair use thresholds are described in the County Planning Department’s Water
Availability Analysis: Policy Report dated August 2007 (Exhibit 10) and in the current
“Groundwater Permit Application” available on the County’s web site (Exhibit 13). As noted, the
“fair use” threshold for the “Groundwater Deficient Area” in the MST region is 0.3 acre feet per acre
per year. (Exhibit 10, pp. 3, 8; Exhibit 13, pp. 4, 6; Exhibit 16, p. 7.) This threshold “was
determined using data from the 1977 USGS report on the Hydrology of the Milliken Sarco Tulocay
region. The value is calculated by dividing the “safe annual yield” (as determined by the USGS study
of 1977) by the total acreage of the affected area (10,000 acres).” (Exhibit 10, p. 8, Exhibit 16, p.
20.) According to the County “It is assumed that if all consumers within the MST basin were to
limit their consumption to 0.3 acre-feet per acre per year there will be sufficient groundwater for all
properties within that area.” (Exhibit 10, p. 3.)
The Planning Department’s August 2007 Water Availability Analysis: Policy Report explains
that:
The threshold for the Valley Floor Area was determined in 1991 in the form of a
Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors. The value of 1.0 AF/A/Year was
established as the expected demand an average vineyard would have. It was noted
that the Valley Floor threshold would have relatively little effect on neighboring
wells.
The threshold for the Mountain Area [i.e., Hillsides] was established due to the
uncertainty of the geology, and the increasingly fractured aquifer in the mountainous
and non Napa Valley areas.
(Exhibit 10, p. 8) In other words, the threshold for the Hillsides area is not based on substantial
evidence.4
Also, the County’s “fair use” thresholds, including the MST threshold, are not valid because
they do not take into account the fact that many previous owners may be using more than their
threshold amount. Thus, the County’s assumption that “all consumers within the MST basin [are]
4
It is also worth noting that the threshold for the Valley Floor Area (i.e., 1 acre-foot per acre per year)
is not based on the reliable, available supply of groundwater, it is based on the expected demand an
average vineyard would have. The 1991 staff report to the Board of Supervisors notes that no
“extensive groundwater studies” have been conducted in many areas of the County. (Exhibit 11, p.
2.) The 1991 staff report summarizes the findings in the January 1991 Water Resources Study for
the Napa County Region (Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) (Exhibit 12).
1.6
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 11
to limit their consumption to 0.3 acre-feet per acre per year” (Exhibit 10, p. 3) is unsupported. As
a result, later owners may not be able to use their “threshold” amount, or any amount of groundwater,
without causing or exacerbating existing significant effects. In other words, if the purported “safe
yield” of the MST aquifer is used up by allocating the entire purported “safe yield” to every acre in
the MST at the rate of 0.3 acre feet year, the County’s application of this allocation only to new uses
of groundwater in the area cannot ensure that groundwater use does not exceed the purported “safe
yield.”
Further, the MST groundwater supply is in overdraft. The 2003 USGS analysis concludes:
Long-term hydrographs for wells in the study area indicate that the greatest rate of
decline occurred after the early 1970s and coincides with an increase in the number
of wells drilled in the study area. Declining ground-water levels evident over a large
part of the Milliken, Sarco, and Tulocay Creeks area is an indication that current
(2000–2002) ground-water use exceeds average ground-water replenishment.
(Exhibit 15, p. 60.) Therefore, the idea that there is, or could be, a “safe yield” from this
groundwater source that can safely supply future groundwater uses is untenable.
In sum, the fair use “thresholds” are not based on any empirical analysis of actual
groundwater supply and demand, and cannot be substituted for the reasoned, fact-based analysis
required by CEQA.
The IS/MND’s discussion of the Project’s incremental impacts on groundwater resources
(at pp. 23-25) does not discuss the Project’s compliance with either the traditional fair use thresholds
used by the County or the new “no net increase, whichever is less” standard. Instead, the MND’s
threshold of significance for impacts on the MST aquifer is whether the project will use more
groundwater than the amount of MST aquifer recharge which the property provides. This is the
wrong threshold. The correct threshold is whether the additional loss of recharge to be caused by
the project is “cumulatively considerable” considering the existing severe impact on the MST (i.e.,
it is in overdraft, or in the words of the MND, shows “increasing depths to groundwater” (MND p.
24)).
The IS/MND’s discussion of the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on groundwater
resources are improperly based in large measure on the County’s fair use thresholds. (MND, p. 38.)
As noted above, these fair use thresholds are improper under CEQA.
The County’s fair use thresholds and the MND’s threshold of significance for impacts on the
MST (i.e., whether the project will use more groundwater than the amount of MST aquifer recharge
which the property provides) both conflate the issue of “environmental impact” with the issue of an
overlying landowners’ right to extract underlying groundwater. These issues are distinct. The fact
a landowner may have a right to pump a certain amount of groundwater does not mean that pumping
does not have a significant environmental impact that must be disclosed under CEQA.
1.6
Cont.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 12
Indeed, the letter report from geologist Greg Kamman (attached as Exhibit 7) demonstrates
the Project may have a significant effect on MST groundwater resources because it will draw water
that would otherwise recharge the MST aquifer. Thus, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair
argument of significant effects, and therefore, under CEQA, a Negative Declaration is insufficient
and preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report for this project is required
before it can be approved.5
Applying the County’s new “Water Use Criteria” of “0.3 acre-feet per acre per year or no net
increase, whichever is less” leads to the same conclusion. By depriving the MST aquifer of recharge
that it would otherwise receive, the Project’s use of groundwater violates the “no net increase”
standard. Therefore, again, an EIR is required.
Also, the cumulative impacts of this Project on the MST aquifer with the Walt Ranch Project
may be significant, considering that both Projects will reduce recharge flows to the MST. (See
Exhibit 24 [Letter from Greg Kamman to Tom Lippe re Walt Ranch Vineyard EIR, November 20,
2014].)
5
See Exhibit 17, p. 30 [“To the east of the MST Subarea a series of tuff exposures occur along
Milliken, Sarco, Hagan, and Tulucay Creeks (Figure 2.10). Milliken, Sarco and Hagan Creeks flow
into the MST Subarea where each crosses a large body of Sonoma Volcanics sedimentary deposits.
Farrar and Metzger (2003) measured the greatest stream losses (16.5 acre-feet per day, (afd)) along
Milliken Creek where alluvial fan and Sonoma Volcanics sedimentary deposits overlie a thick tuff
deposit (Figure 2.8, A-A’)”]; p. 33 [“Outside of the Napa Valley Floor, percolation of surface water
appears to be the primary source of recharge. The rate of recharge within the MST has been shown
to be significantly higher where streams and tributaries cross highly permeable outcrops, like the
tuffaceous member of the Sonoma Volcanics, or shallow alluvium overlying highly permeable
aquifer units. Direct infiltration of precipitation is a major component of recharge in the main Napa
Valley. Recharge throughout much of the county is generally limited by underlying shallow bedrock
of low permeability. An additional component of groundwater recharge, which has not been
accounted for in previous studies, is deep percolation through joints, fractures, and faults. This type
of recharge can be very difficult to quantify due to the highly variable size and distribution of faults,
fractures, and joints in a given area”]; Exhibit 18, p. 29 [“The groundwater conservation ordinance
makes a distinction with respect to permitting requirements within groundwater deficient basins of
which one is currently recognized: the Milliken-Sarco-Tulucay area, or MST. Because the MST
basin is considered a groundwater deficient area, additional regulations and review requirements
under the CEQA have required application of “no net increase” and “fair share” principles in
groundwater use associated with discretionary actions requiring county approval. The “no net
increase” in groundwater use is required because there is no surplus water to support new projects
without adverse environmental impacts. The County has also recently established a water
conservation program in the MST to disseminate information relevant to the unique needs of this
deficient area”].)
1.6
Cont.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 13
Finally, as noted above, the County’s “fair use” thresholds (e.g., 0.3 acre-feet per acre per
year or 0.5 acre-feet per acre per year) are directed to the allocation of competing overlying property
rights to groundwater, not to assessing or disclosing environmental impacts under CEQA. The
“fairness” of these thresholds supposedly arises from the fact the allocations are based on acreage
owned in the watershed above the groundwater basin from which the groundwater will be pumped.
Here, however, the project applicant will use groundwater derived from precipitation in the Milliken
Creek/Nara River watershed that would otherwise recharge the MST aquifer to irrigate vineyard
blocks located in the Capell Creek/Putah Creek/Sacramento River watershed, which is an entirely
different river drainage. Using MST water out-of-basin is neither “fair” to other landowners in the
basin nor environmentally insignificant.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Very Truly Yours,
Thomas N. Lippe
List of Exhibits
1.
Napa Valley Hillside Vineyards: Cumulative Effects of Conversion of Upland Woodlands
and Chaparral to Vineyards; Robert Curry Ph.D.; December 24, 2000. [AR 8829-8940; pdf 8946-8957.]
2.
Letter dated May 7, 2008, from Dr. Robert Curry Ph.D. to Thomas Lippe re Napa River
Watershed Sediment TMDL and Habitat Enhancement Plan. [AR 9563-9565; pdf 9580-9582.]
3.
Dr. Robert Curry, Curriculum Vitae.
[AR 8871-8874; pdf 8888-8891.]
4.
Napa River Sediment TMDL and Habitat Enhancement Plan, Final Staff Report, San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board; September 16, 2009. [AR 1577-1737; pdf 15941754.]
5.
Excerpts from Responses to Comments on Napa River Sediment TMDL and Habitat
Enhancement Plan, San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board; January 16,
2007. [AR 458, 515-516; pdf 476-533.]
6.
Memo to File From Mike Napolitano, San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board Re
Napa River Sediment TMDL; November 24, 2008.
7.
Letter from Greg Kamman to Tom Lippe re Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard
Conversion; May 14, 2015.
1.6
Cont.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 14
8.
Letter and Report from Pat Higgins to Tom Lippe re Walt Ranch Vineyard EIR; November
20, 2014.
9.
Milliken Creek Steelhead Habitat Modeling and Instream Flow Study, Napa County
Resource Conservation District; December 2010.
10.
Water Availability Analysis: Policy Report, County Planning Department; August 2007.
11.
Memorandum to Planning Commission from Jeffrey Redding, Planning Director, re Public
Works Department Report on Water Availability Analysis; February 27, 1991.
12.
Water Resources Study for the Napa County Region, Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District; January 1991.
13.
Groundwater Permit Application, Napa County; 2014.
14.
Groundwater Hydrology of the Lower Milliken–Sarco–Tulucay Creeks Area, Napa County,
California, USGS; 1977.
15.
Groundwater Resources in the Lower Milliken–Sarco–Tulucay Creeks Area, Southeastern
Napa County, California, 2000–2002, USGS; 2003.
16.
Napa County, Water Availability Analysis (WAA) - Guidance Document, April 23, 2015.
17.
Luhdorff & Scalamini, Technical Memorandum (TM 4), Napa County Groundwater
Conditions and Groundwater Monitoring Recommendations; 2011.
18.
Luhdorff & Scalamini, Technical Memorandum (TM 5), Groundwater Planning
Considerations and Review of Napa County Groundwater Ordinance and Permit Process; 2011.
19.
Dewberry, C. 2003. Development and Application of Anchor Habitat Approaches to Salmon
Conservation: A synthesis of data and observations from the Napa watershed, California. Performed
under contract to Ecotrust and the Friends of Napa River by Dr. Charles Dewberry, Florence, OR.
10 p.
20.
Friends of Napa River. 2003. Map of reaches of high juvenile steelhead production in the
Napa River. Prepared by Friends of Napa River in support of study by Dr. Charles Dewberry. Napa,
CA 1 p.
21.
Dewberry, C. 2004. Milliken Report 2002: Summary of the biological data collected in the
Milliken basin. Performed under contract to Ecotrust and the Friends of Napa River by Dr. Charles
Dewberry, Florence, OR. 16 p.
Kelli Cahill
Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kongsgaard Wine LLC
Application No. P14-00069-ECPA
May 14, 2015
Page 15
22.
Luhdorff & Scalamini, Updated Hydrogeologic Conceptualization and Characterization of
Conditions, Napa County; January 2013.
23.
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Walt Ranch Vineyard Project, p. 4.6-8.
24.
Letter from Greg Kamman to Tom Lippe re Walt Ranch Vineyard EIR; November 20, 2014.
T:\TL\Napa4 Kongsgaard\Administrative Proceedings\LOTNL Docs\C001b MND comment 1.wpd
Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc.
7 Mt. Lassen Drive, Suite B250, San Rafael, CA 94903
Telephone: (415) 491-9600
Facsimile: (415) 680-1538
E-mail: [email protected]
May 14, 2015
Tom Lippe
Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe APC
201 Mission St., 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject:
Review of IS/MND
Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion
Agricultural Erosion Control Plan #P14-00069
Dear Tom:
I am a hydrologist with over twenty five years of technical and consulting experience in the fields
of geology, hydrology, and hydrogeology. I have been providing professional hydrology services
in California since 1991 and routinely manage projects in the areas of surface- and groundwater
hydrology, water supply, water quality assessments, water resources management, and
geomorphology. Most of my work is located in the Coast Range watersheds of California,
including the Northern and Southern San Francisco Bay Counties. My areas of expertise include:
characterizing and modeling watershed-scale hydrologic and geomorphic processes; evaluating
surface- and ground-water resources/quality and their interaction; assessing hydrologic,
geomorphic, and water quality responses to land-use changes in watersheds and causes of stream
channel instability; and designing and implementing field investigations characterizing surface
and subsurface hydrologic and water quality conditions. I co-own and operate the hydrology and
engineering consulting firm Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. in San Rafael, California
(established in 1997). I earned a Master of Science in Geology, specializing in Sedimentology
and Hydrogeology as well as an A.B. in Geology from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. I am a
California Certified Hydrogeologist (CHg) and a registered Professional Geologist (PG).
I have reviewed the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated March 11, 2015
and all associated appendices/exhibits for the Kongsgaard Wine LLC – Atlas Peak Vineyard Conversion
(Agricultural Erosion Control Plan #P14-00069). In addition to the IS/MND, I have reviewed the following
documents and rely on technical information contained in these documents to help formulate my opinions.




Farrar, C.D. and Metzger, L.F., 2003, Ground-water resources in the Lower Milliken-SarcoTulucay Creeks area, Southeastern Napa County, California, 2000-2002. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4229, prepared in cooperation with the
Napa County Department of Public Works, 106p.
Faye, R.E., 1973, Ground-water hydrology of Northern Napa Valley. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations 13-73, prepared in cooperation with the Napa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, November, 72p.
Johnson, M.J., 1977, Ground-water hydrology of the Lower Milliken-Sarco-Tulucay Creeks
area, Napa County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations
77-82, Open file report, August, 40p.
Kunkel, F. and Upson, J.E., 1960, Geology and ground water in Napa and Sonoma Valleys,
Napa and Sonoma Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
1495, prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, 264p.
\\Lgw-12-19-12\tl\Napa4 Kongsgaard\Administrative Proceedings\Consultants\GRK_comments_5-14-15_v2.docx
1




Luhdorff & Scalmanini (LSCE) and MBK Engineers, 2013, Updated Hydrogeologic
Conceptualization and Characterization of Conditions. Prepared for: Napa County,
January, 181p.
Napa County, 2015, Working Draft Water Availability Analysis (WAA) – Guidance
Document (three drafts reviewed: updated December 18, 2014, March 2, 2015, and April
23, 2015).
Napa County, 2005, Napa County Baseline Data Report – Chapter 16 Groundwater
Hydrology (Version 1). 13p.
Napa County Department of Environmental Management, 2012, Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay
(MST) groundwater deficient basin. Presentation to Napa County Groundwater
Resources Advisory Committee (GRAC), April 26, 2012, 9 slides.
Based on my review of these materials, it is my professional opinion that the project:
1. Has not demonstrated sufficient groundwater recharge occurs on-site at an annual rate
equivalent to or greater than the estimated annual project water demands;
2. Failed to analyze the impacts of project groundwater withdrawals on the groundwater
supply to the County designated water deficient MST Basin;
3. Has the unstated potential to impart significant adverse impacts to the water quality of
Milliken Creek, Milliken Reservoir and the Napa River via increased erosion and
sediment loads from the project; and
4. Has failed to properly analyze potential adverse impacts on project-induced erosion and
the potential impacts on the receiving water bodies.
The rationale for these opinions is presented in the following sections.
1. Inaccurate Groundwater Recharge Estimate
The stated main purpose of the RCS groundwater recharge study (Exhibit 4 in IS/MND) is, “To
help provide compliance with the new Tier 1 Water Availability Analysis requirements that are
currently being developed for Napa County, as specifically requested by the County for this
project.” From the perspective of Water Use Criterion, the RCS analysis assumes that the project
falls under the WAA designation of “All Other Areas” (i.e., not located in the Napa Valley Floor
or a groundwater deficient area). The new County WAA indicates that no single criterion can be
established for “All Other Areas” due to the uncertainty of the geology, and the increasingly
fractured rock aquifer systems in the mountainous and non-Napa Valley areas. The WAA
stipulates that project applicants need to estimate the average annual recharge occurring on the
project parcel and consider the amount of recharge relative to the estimation of project water use,
including all current and proposed project water demands. The estimate of average annual
recharge can be made by various methods including water balance methods. The new WAA also
states; a) that the selected method should be based on data from the parcel or watershed where the
proposed project is located, and b) the estimated project water use, including existing and
proposed uses of water on the project parcel(s), shall include estimates for normal and dry water
years. It is my opinion that the recharge estimate completed by RCS is inaccurate (over inflated)
and their study does not comply with the WAA for the following reasons.
2



RCS presents only a single estimated “long-term average” project water demand. I was
unable to find a dry year water demand estimate in the RCS report or anywhere else in
the IS/MND.
The “conservative” deep groundwater recharge estimate used by RCS in their study is
equivalent to 9% of rainfall. This value is based on their uncited work in Sonoma County
and, in part, on the hydrology work by Johnson (1977) in the MST basin. Without more
information on the origin/source/location of other recharge estimates cited by RCS,
information presented by Johnson (1977) is most representative of the project site. Per
the RCS study, a 9% recharge rate yields an average annual recharge volume of 35-acre
fee (AF), assuming an average annual precipitation total of 40 inches (3.33 feet) and
recharge area of 117 acres. Their estimated average annual recharge rate is greater than
the short- and long-term project water demands of 18.4- and 11.2 AF/yr, respectively.
The problem with applying Johnson’s 9% recharge rate to the project site is that it
reflects an MST watershed-wide average, incorporating the high stream and volcanic tuff
infiltration rates in the lower elevations of the eastern hills with much lower infiltration
rates representative of the higher elevation volcanic terrain. The Johnson (1977) and
Farrar and Metzger (2003) studies indicate that of the total 5,400 AF of average annual
recharge to the MST, 3,050 AF/yr is supplied by stream flow infiltration along the eastern
margin of 15-square MST storage area, 2,100 AF/yr comes as subsurface inflow from the
27-square mile higher elevation volcanic terrain, and 250 AF/yr is direct infiltration of
precipitation to the 15-square mile lower MST storage area on the valley floor. Given the
volcanic terrain headwater area of the MST basin covers 27 square miles (Johnson, 1977,
suggests this area may be up to 33 square miles) and the 2,100 AF/yr of groundwater
inflow from the block reflects the annual deep groundwater recharge rate, the annual deep
groundwater recharge rate in the higher elevation volcanic terrain is only 1.46 in/yr (4%
of average annual precipitation). Applying this recharge rate to the project area covered
with Sonoma Volcanics (117-acres) yields an average annual deep groundwater recharge
volume of 15.6 AF/yr, a value less than the project short-term water demand (18.2
AF/yr).
In their hydrogeology report from 2013, LSCE present detailed information about the
spatial variability of groundwater recharge and associated conditions (geology, soil,
slope, and landuse) that control recharge in Napa County. LSCE placed particular
emphasis on the variable of slope, in that recharge potential is “significantly reduced”
where ground surface slopes exceed 30 degrees (58%). The RCS study does not factor
ground surface slope into their recharge analysis, however, and the IS/MND states (page
2) that 50 acres of the site are in excess of 30%. Project soil types described in the
IS/MND are noted to occur on slopes as high as 75%. The RCS study does not factor
slope into their analysis, but it is likely that some portion of the 117-acre recharge area
contains steep slopes that will diminish the recharge potential, further reducing the annual
recharge volume in combination with the more representative and lower recharge rate.
2. Failure to Analyze Potential Project Impacts on the MST Groundwater Deficient Basin
A 117-acre portion of the project site is a groundwater recharge area for the Milliken-Sarco-Tulucay
groundwater basin (MST). The IS/MND does not evaluate the potential adverse impacts of project
groundwater withdrawals on the groundwater supply of the MST basin. The MST is the second largest
groundwater basin in the County. It is located adjacent to the city of Napa along the eastern edge of the
valley floor and covers an area of approximately 15 square miles. Because of acknowledged overpumping from the MST basin, the County has designated the MST as a “groundwater deficient area”, as
defined in the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance.
3
The County delineates the MST basin as indicated in Figure 1 (Napa County Ordinance No.
1294, Chapter 13.15 Groundwater Conservation). The County’s MST delineation likely comes
from the “Study Area” designation presented in the 1977 USGS report (Johnson, 1977) cited in
the WAA. The “Study Area” outlined in 1977 USGS report defines the downstream alluvial
aquifer and underlying Sonoma Volcanic groundwater storage areas associated with known
groundwater overdraft. This “Study Area” encompasses a 15-square mile area within the
cumulative 42-squre mile drainage area for the Milliken, Sarco and Tulucay Creek watersheds
(see Figure 2). The point of this discussion is to distinguish between the County’s jurisdictional
MST “Study Area” and the physically-based MST hydrologic watershed and groundwater
system.
The 1977 USGS study, along with the more recent follow-up study completed by the USGS
(Farrar and Metzger, 2003) clearly indicate that the 27-square mile higher elevation bedrock area
lying to the east (and including a portion of the Project area) are in direct hydraulic connection
with and provide recharge to the 15-square mile MST groundwater storage “Study Area.” The
USGS (2013) provides a graphical representation of the groundwater system underlying the MST
Creeks watershed, reproduced here in Figure 3. This conceptual groundwater flow model
indicates that rainfall infiltrates and recharges the Sonoma Volcanic bedrock groundwater in the
eastern uplands up to the topographic drainage divide. The groundwater in the Sonoma Volcanic
bedrock then migrates westward over time towards the main alluvium and deeper Sonoma
Volcanics storage area in the valley bottom, adjacent to the Napa River (designated “Study
Area”). The eastern boundary of the County’s designated MST basin generally occurs where the
foot of the mountains intersect the valley floor. In reference to the MST basin, Farrar and
Metzger (2003, page 59) state, “The principal source of ground-water replenishment to the study
area is lateral flow of ground water that is recharged in the Howell Mountains to the east of the
study area.” They also state (2003, page 21), “Johnson (1977) estimated that the average annual
recharge in the area of this study in 1975 was 5,400 acre-ft/yr: 3,050 acre-ft/yr from streamflow
infiltration; 2,100 acre-ft/yr from subsurface inflow from the Howell Mountain block; and about
250 acre-ft/yr from direct infiltration of precipitation.
I believe that the 1977 and 2003 USGS studies provide conclusive information that the portion of the
project area underlain by Sonoma Volcanics and draining to Milliken Creek lies in an important recharge
area to the MST groundwater basin and is hydraulically connected to the lower MST groundwater storage
area. Thus, any withdrawals from the Sonoma Volcanics within the Project site will directly reduce the
groundwater inflow and supply to the MST basin and further deplete groundwater resources in an already
groundwater deficient basin.
4
FIGURE 1: County designated MST groundwater basin (Source: Napa County Groundwater Ordinance).
5
FIGURE 2: Location of 2003 USGS study area, differentiating between basin drainage area and “Study
Area” boundaries (Source: Figure 1 in Farrar and Metzger, 2003).
6
FIGURE 3: Conceptual model of groundwater flow system in the lower Milliken-Sarco-Tulucay Creeks
area (Source: Figure 9 in Farrar and Metzger, 2003).
3. Unstated Potential Impact on Water Quality of Milliken Creek and Napa River
The IS/MND conclusions regarding project-induced changes in erosion potential are based on summing
vineyard block soil loss subtotals and presenting the total (net) change for the entire project area. The net
Unified Soil Loss Equation (USLE) results presented in the IS/MND indicate that there is an overall
reduction in potential soil loss associated with the project. However, this type of lumping of results
masks the watershed-specific potential impacts, which when considered alone, actually result in a
potential significant impact on water quality to the Milliken Creek and Napa River watersheds.
Breaking down the changes in modeled soil loss results presented in Table 6 of the IS/MND (page 16) by
watershed indicates that overall net post-project soil loss from Vineyard Blocks (Blocks 1, 2 and 3)
draining to the Milliken Creek watershed will increase by 0.41- to 1.72-tons/year over existing conditions,
(the actual value depends on how much of Block 1 drains to Milliken Creek vs. Capell Creek). The
7
overall net post project soil loss from Vineyard Blocks (Blocks 4 and 5) draining to Capell Creek will
decrease by 4.18-tons/year. There is heightened significance to this potential adverse impact to Milliken
Creek, tributary to Napa River, as the Napa River has been designated as an impaired water body for
sediment under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Trapping of project derived sediment in Milliken
Reservoir does not mitigate this potential impact as indicated in the following text found on page 24 of
the IS/MND.
“Historically, the construction of large dams and other impoundment structures between
1924 and 1959 on major tributaries in the eastern Napa River watershed and northern
headwater areas of the Napa River has affected sediment transport processes into the
mainstem of the Napa River by reducing the delivery of the coarse load sediments to the
river (Stillwater Science and W. Dietrich, 2002). However, the finer sediments that are
not trapped by dams, are negatively affecting salmonid habitat by reducing gravel
permeability potentially affecting special status fish species (Stillwater Science and W.
Dietrich, 2002). In response, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco
Bay District has released a technical report that proposes a TMDL for the Napa River,
which calls for reductions in the amount of fine sediment deposits into the watershed to
improve water quality and maintain beneficial uses of the river, including spawning and
rearing habitat for salmonid species.”
Although results of the soil loss analysis bode well for the Capell Creek watershed, they clearly indicate a
potential and significant impact to an already sediment impacted Napa River and also an important
drinking water supply reservoir for Napa County.
4. Failure to Analyze Project Erosion Potential and Associated Water Quality Impacts
The project contends that development activities will reduce runoff rates from vineyard areas. The runoff
analyses that inform this conclusion only address and incorporate the changes in land-use type on runoff
rates/volumes. However, the project proposes a number of surface drains and subdrains that will
intentionally and unintentionally concentrate and accelerate runoff off through proposed vineyard blocks.
The hydrology storm runoff analysis did not incorporate these drainage elements into the storm water
runoff calculations, where applicable. Based on my experience, project drainage elements will lead to
significant increases in the estimated runoff rates, both on- and off-site. Thus, the peak flow rates for
project conditions are underestimated, which means the potential impacts associated with high storm
flows have not been accurately identified and evaluated.
Increases in site runoff rates not only effect erosion on-site, but also can propagate downstream and offsite. For purposes of the following discussion, surface erosion is defined as that process by which rainfall
and non-concentrated (sheet flow) rainfall-runoff erode and transport sediment off of relatively flat
upland surfaces. In contrast, channel erosion refers to the erosion (down cutting and side cutting) in
swales, ditches and channels by concentrated runoff and flow.
The project sedimentation and erosion potential evaluation for the site utilized the empirically-based
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) to determine changes in annual erosion rates between existing and
project conditions. The erosion potential assessment using the USLE only addresses surface erosion from
individual vineyard blocks. The project erosion potential analysis does not consider or evaluate the
potential for channel erosion within intervening or downstream receiving slopes, swales, and creeks
outside of the vineyard blocks. This is a significant omission of potential erosion and sediment sources,
especially in light of the fact that the project is underestimating the peak runoff from vineyard blocks.
Thus, without considering the increase in channel runoff and associated channel erosion due to project
development, the erosion potential analysis should be considered incomplete.
8
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding the material and conclusions contained in this
letter report.
Sincerely,
Greg Kamman, PG, CHG
Principal Hydrologist
9
Comment I
May14,2015
KelliCahill,PlannerIII
NapaCountyPlanning,Building,andEnvironmentalServices
1195ThirdStreet,2ndFloor
Napa,CA94559
Re:KongsgaardWineLLC–AtlasPeakVineyardConversion,ErosionControlPlan
#P14‐000069‐ECPA
DearMs.Cahill,
Iappreciatetheopportunitytocommentonthemitigatednegativedeclaration.
Yourextensionofthecommentperiodwashelpfulforme.Withrespecttothe
proposeddestructionofoakwoodlands,thisMNDfailstoinformofthefullextentof
GHGemissionsthatwillresult,andfailstomitigatethoseemissions.AnEIR’s
analysisoftheproject’sGHGemissionsandpotentialmitigationsisrequested.
OptionsforaReducedIntensityAlternativeoraNoProjectAlternativecouldbe
preferable.
1.1
Recentsciencehaslenttothegrowingconsensusthatforestsaremoreimportant
thaneverinourracetoreducenetcarbonemissionstozero.Deforestationof7.8
acresofoakwoodlands–553treesanddeeprippingofsoil–leadstolossofthe
importantcarbonsinksandnegativeemissionsservicetheforestprovides,nowand
inthefuture.
1.2
AnOxfordresearchteamrecentlyconcludedthattreesarebyfarthebestnegative
emissionstechnology(NET)availabletoday1.YetNapaCounty’sGeneralPlan
allows12,500acrestobedevelopedby2030.Presumablymuchofthisexpansionis
meanttotakeplaceinwoodedhillsides.Indeedrecentvineyardconversions
approvedbytheCountypermitextensiveclearcuttingofforests.Oakwoodlandsin
particulararehard‐working,peace‐lovingpartnersintampingdowntheharmful
effectsofourcarbonpollution.
1.3
Whereclimateisconcerned,forestsarenolonger“renewable.”Forpractical
purposes,thetimerequiredfortheirrenewalhasceasedtoexist.In2009,the
CopenhagenAccordrecognizedthattheincreaseinglobaltemperatureshouldbe
keptbelow2degCtocombatclimatechange.Wearecurrently0.9degCwarmer,
withanother0.8degreesofclimate‐forcinginertiainthepipeline.BillMcKibben’s
GlobalWarming’sTerrifyingNewMath2,publishedin2012,elucidatesdatafromthe
1.4
CarbonTrackerInitiative:Inordernottoexceed2degC,wemaynotpourany
morethan565gigatonsofCO2intotheatmosphere.That’sourcarbonbudget.
AccordingtoCO2Now.org,globally,in2013,CO2emissionsduetofossilfueluseand
cementproductionwere36gigatons3.Assumingbusiness‐as‐usualhereis2015,
thatleavesuswithabout13yearsbeforeour565gigatonbudgetisexceeded.
BecauseofthisextremeimbalanceinatmosphericCO2,forestsmustnotbecut
downandreplantedanotherday.Theircarbonsequestrationandstorageservices
areneededtodayandeverydayforthenext13yearsandbeyond.Policiesinimical
tothishavealotofexplainingtodo.
1.4
Cont.
WhileCaliforniahasthenation’smostambitiousclimategoals,NapaCountyisa
laggardinclimateprotections.IthasneitheraClimateActionPlannorbindingOak
WoodlandConservationPlan.GovernorBrownissuedanexecutiveorderlast
monthtoaggressivelycutGHGemissions40%below1990levelsby2030.To
complicatethematter,arecentstudycommissionedbyCARBfoundthatinsteadof
forestsandothervegetationprovidingacarbonsink,landuseinCaliforniaactually
adds5‐7%toitscarbonfootprint.AccordingtotheNatureConservancy,there’sno
waytomeetthestate’sambitiousclimatetargetswithoutdealingwith
deforestation4.
1.5
Worldwide,manufacturersandsuppliersaremakingpledgestostopcuttingdown
forests.Thepublic’sgrowingawarenessofthevalueofcomplex,thrivingforest
ecosystemswon’tallowit.Protectionsforenvironmentalhealthareprotectionsfor
publichealth.Today,responsiblecompaniesinsurethatdeforestationisavoidedfor
growingsoy,corn,andpalmoil,tonameafew.Insomeinstances,whereindustry
groupsorgovernmentareunabletomakethechangehappen,individualleadersare
steppinguptomaketherightchoice.SuchwastherecentcaseofaCEOofthe
world’slargestpalmoilcorporation,Wilmar5.Yethereathome,NapaCountydoes
littletodiscouragetheeviscerationofitsownforestsforgrowingwinegrapes.
Deforestationisthenormanditcontinuesunabated.
1.6
Why,whenweshouldbeconservingoakwoodlandsandplantingforestslike
thereisnotomorrow,isNapaCountypermittingtheirdestruction?
TheMNDstatesthatinNapaCounty,733acresofoakwoodlandhavebeencleared
between1993and2002(pg.13oftheISChecklist).Givencurrentpoliciesand
zoningcodes,considerablymoreforestdestructioncanbeexpectedintheCounty.
1.7
WhyistheKongsgaardforestlossnotconsideredapotentiallysignificant
negativeimpactconsideringthecumulativeeffectsofprojectsthissize?
TheMNDstatesthatasproposed,theprojectwillretain90%oftheoveralltree
canopyonsite.(pg.13ofISChecklist).Thus,itisincompliancewiththeCounty
ZoningCode18.108.27(B)(Sensitivedomesticwatersupplydrainage,60%tree
1.8
canopyretentionvs.1993coverageonparcel),andGeneralPlanConservation
ElementPolicyCON‐24(preservationofoakwoodlandat2:1ratio,acreagebasis,as
mitigationforoakremoval).TheMNDfurthermorenotes12‐14acresofoak
woodland(approximately890trees)willbevoluntarilypreserved.
ApledgetonotcutdownmoretreesdoesnothingtomitigatetheGHG
emissionscausedbythetreesthatarebeingcutanddugout.TheMND
needstoshowscienceorfacttosupporttheprocessbywhichpreserving
someotheroakwoodlandcansuddenlybemadetomitigatethelossof
carbonsequestrationandstorageservicesoftheoakwoodlanddestroyed.
1.8
Cont.
TheMNDstatesthatonetime(or“construction”)emissionsassociatedwith
vineyarddevelopmentprojectincludesthecarbonthatislostwhensitevegetation
isremovedandsoilisripped(pg18ofISChecklist).
“Onetimeemissions”ismisleading.Thereisnota“onetime”negative
impactbytonsofGHGs.Itdoesnotdoitsdamageandimmediatelyget
absorbedbytheoceanorvegetation.Thereisangrowing,decades‐long
cumulativenegativeimpactbytheseidenticalclimate‐forcinggreenhouse
gassesreleased.TheMNDneedstoclarifya“onetime”emissionsimpact.In
actuality,heat‐trappingdamagetoclimatecontinueslongaftertheoak
woodlandsareexpunged.
1.9
TheMNDestimatesthat3,182.6MTCO2ewouldbeemittedduetoconstruction‐
relatedvegetationremovalandsoilpreparation(pg.19ofISChecklist).
WhataretheassociatedCH4andN2Oemissions?Whatarethevarietiesof
impactsassociatedwithbiomassdisposal?HowdoesthisbiogenicGHG
analysiscomparetothatusedintheLeffMNDandwhyisthereadifference
inanalysis?
1.10
Why,unliketheLeffMND,istherenorequirementforplantingtreespriorto
deforestation?
Carbonstoredingrasslandsandshrubland/chaparralisasmallfractionof
thatstoredinoakwoodlands.Why,asanalternativetouprootingtheoak
woodlands,cangrasslandsorshrubland/chaparralonthisparcelnotbeused
insteadforthevineyardexpansion?
TheMNDstatesthatinthecontextof12,500acresofprojectedvineyard
development,theproposedprojectwouldconstitutelessthanapproximately0.1%
ofthetotal(pg.20ofISChecklist).ItgoesontodiscusssomeoffsetstoGHG
emissionsbyuseofBMPsandconcludestheoverallone‐timeGHGemissionsarenot
1.11
a“considerable”contributiontothesignificantunavoidableimpactidentifiedinthe
GeneralPlanEIR.
Thisisaninvalidpremisetoday.Allsourcesofatmosphericcarbonpollution,
regardlessofsource,needtobeaccountedforandcompletelymitigated.
WhereintheNapaCountyGeneralPlanEIR–orDEIR–issignificant
unavoidableGHGimpactsjustified?And,isthatjustificationlegitimatetoday
givencurrentscienceandfacts(and,increasingly,legislation)supportingthe
urgentneedtoslashourcarbonpollution?
1.11
Cont.
TheMNDnamessixtypesofoaktreesfoundinthewoodlandalliancesonthe
property(pg.13oftheISChecklist).
Halfofthesenamesareincorrect.Pleasecalltheseoaktreesbytheircorrect
names.
Sincerely,
JimWilson
5000MonticelloRoad
Napa,CA94558
1.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015‐02‐03/scientists‐seeking‐to‐
save‐world‐find‐best‐technology‐is‐trees
2.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global‐warmings‐terrifying‐new‐
math‐20120719
3.http://co2now.org/Current‐CO2/CO2‐Now/global‐carbon‐emissions.html
4.http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/save‐climate‐california‐
needs‐save‐its‐forests
5.http://grist.org/food/48‐hours‐that‐changed‐the‐future‐of‐rainforests/
1.12
Comment J
1.1
1.2
1.2
Cont.
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
Cont.
1.8
1.9
1.10