May 9, 2002

July 19, 2004

Allen Robertson, Deputy Chief

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

P.O. Box 944246

Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

Re: Negative Declaration for Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion Permit #531

Associated THP 1-04-059 SON

CDF File 1-04-059

Dear Deputy Chief Robertson:

I would like to offer my comments on the proposed Negative Declaration for the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion and associated THP 1-04-059 SON. I was the Hydrologist for the Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA) from May 1989 to November 1994. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors appointed me as their representative on pre-harvest inspections for THPs with the potential to impact public water systems. As the MCWA Hydrologist, I also reviewed Proof-of-Water pump tests for the Town of Mendocino. I also routinely reviewed CEQA documents for projects before the Planning Commission. I have a Masters in Physical Science specializing in Hydrology from Chico State University. Since 1994 I have been a consulting Hydrologist. I have also taught Hydrology at California State University, Monterey Bay.

The proposed Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion is located in Sonoma County, approximately one-third mile northeast of Annapolis. The proposal is to replace 25 acres of coniferous forest with 20 acres of vineyards, 3 acres for vineyard roads and 2 acres for buildings. The project is on the southeast end of Brushy Ridge. The proposed conversion drains to Little Creek and then to Buckeye Creek and finally to the South Fork of the Gualala River. Lower Little Creek supports steelhead and is therefore a Class I stream. Steelhead were listed as threatened, in the Northern California ESU, on June 7, 2000. The Gualala River is listed as impaired by sediment and temperature. As a result, the THP associated with the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion must follow the Forest Practice Rule 916.9 Protection and Restoration in Watersheds with Threatened or Impaired Values.

The 25 acres that are proposed to be clearcut under the Timberland Conversion permit

Based upon my review of

· the Mitigated Negative Declaration;

· the THP including the Erosion Control Plan and plan revision by the RPF;

· the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff Pre-harvest Inspection Report

and other documents in the file, I find that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion is inappropriate because it is based on unsupported statements and questionable data and ignores findings from Caspar Creek and nearby projects. In addition, the cumulative effect analysis is very weak and does not support the conclusion of no cumulative impacts. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be required for this project.

Incomplete Project Description

The Executive Summary of the Initial Study for the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the slopes range from 0-18% in the area of the conversion (page 3 0f 47). This does not appear to reflect the slopes indicated on the topographic maps. The portion of vineyard Block-1 (see page 60 of the THP) between the 640’ and 680’ contour lines (roughly 2 acres) appears to have slopes ranging from 20% to 35%. The portion of vineyard Block-2 between the 680’ and 720’ contour lines (roughly one acre) appears to slopes of about 25% with one location having a slope of about 40%. Therefore, it is possible that terracing may be required for a portion of vineyard Block-2, according to the guidelines outlined on page 42 of the THP.

According to page 35 of the THP, the Sonoma County Soil Survey the Goldridge soils on Brushy Ridge are in the 15% to 30% slope class. This appears to support the presence of slopes greater than 18% suggested by the topographic map.

Scott Gergus, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), on page 6 of his Pre-harvest Inspection (PHI) Report states:

Map Point #4 – In Vineyard Block #1, the southeastern-most Class III watercourse located below the convergence of two Class III watercourses contained isolated pools. Hillslopes in this area were measured to be 45%. Consideration should be given to reclassifying this watercourse as a Class II. During the inspection the RPF moved the watercourse protection zone flagging away from the watercourse to the break-in-slope. This distance is in excess of 75 feet and provides for Class II watercourse protection zone for slopes up to 50% and appeared to be acceptable during the inspection.

So, it appears that there are slopes requiring terracing in Vineyard Block-1 as well as in Block-2. Failure to terrace the areas with slopes greater than 40% may result in significant slope failures. These areas should be field checked and an appropriate terrace should be designed, if needed. Terracing of the steeper areas may also require a Sonoma County Grading Permit. The areas with steeper slopes should be noted on the THP maps and a separate Erosion Hazard Rating should be calculated for them. The source of the data used to calculate the moderate Erosion Hazard Rating should be given.

I recalculated the Erosion Hazard Rating for the areas with slopes of 45% or greater. No change was made to the Soil Texture Rating of 22. The Slope Rating was set equal to 15. The Protective Vegetative Cover after Disturbance was set to 15. The two year, one-hour rainfall was assumed to be equal to 1.76” per hour (NOAA 1973, as quoted in O’Conner, March 2002) so it received a rating of 15. The total Sum of Factors for the steeper areas was 67 (=22+15+15+15) which results in the steeper areas receiving a High Erosion Hazard Rating.

Mr. Gergus’ PHI report indicates that the RPF agreed to upgrade a Class III watercourse to a Class II watercourse (see above quote). The RPF moved the WLPZ flagging in the field, but has not updated the designation on the maps on pages 18 and 19 of the THP. The maps in the THP are an important part of the Project Description and must be changed.

The THP (page 12) claims that there are no Class I, Class II or Class III watercourses within the plan area. This is not the case. The Class II and Class II watercourses have been give the standard WLPZ protection. The THP states that the

The adjacent Class III watercourses have been give a 50 foot riparian buffer to protect the vegetation cover and habitat. To the fullest extent possible and with consideration to topography, lean of trees, landings, utility poles, local obstructions and safety factors, trees shall be felled to lead in a direction away from class III watercourses. An effort will be made to retain surface cover and to protect vegetation adjacent to watercourse from excessive disturbance, providing wildlife habitat and aiding in the filtration of organic and inorganic materials. Temporary crossings and any soil deposited during timber operations in a class III watercourse shall be removed prior to the winter period. Debris deposited in a class III watercourse during timber operations shall be removed or stabilized prior to October 15. Except at designated crossings flagged by the RPF prior to operations (if any are found), heavy equipment shall not enter (ELZ) within 50 feet of the class III watercourses.

This statement shows that the Class III watercourses were given a standard WLPZ and treated as part of the plan. In addition, the PHI report from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff demonstrates that the Class III watercourses were flagged with WLPZ tape and that one Class III watercourse was upgraded to a Class II. If the watercourses on the Martin property were truly not part of the plan there would be no reason to flag them with WLZP tape.

Claiming that the Class II and Class III watercourses that are surrounded by the Timberland Conversion area are not part of the plan is fallacious reasoning. This reasoning is equivalent to claiming that providing the WLPZ protection to a watercourse, required by the Forest Practice Act (FPA), removes it from the THP. This is clearly not the intent of the FPA.

Claiming that there are no watercourses within the boundaries of the THP and Timberland Conversion area is contrary to the fact that there are Class II and Class III watercourses within the THP/Conversion area and that they have been provided the protections of a standard WLPZ. The claim that there are no watercourses within the THP/Conversion area is incorrect and renders the Project Description incomplete and misleading.

Mr. Gergus (RWQCB) also recommended (p. 6) rocking a Class III crossing of an existing but unused road (overgrown). He notes that, “Runoff across the road has eroded the fillslope and created a nick point”. He is concerned that, “Additional runoff from the proposed vineyard might reactivate the erosion of the fillslope and nick point”. Mr. Gergus’ third recommendation is, “To prevent future erosion, the nick point and fillslope need to be reinforced with riprap”. The RPF submitted a revised page 13 to the THP adding Area C to Item 27 concerning site-specific practices proposed in-lieu of standard WLPZ practices and a revised page 19 which is a map showing the location of areas A, B and C. The narrative for Area C on the revised page 13 states that the nick point will be rip-rapped using 6” rock. No mention of rocking the fillslope is made in the revision. It is essential that the rip-rapping the fillslope be specifically mentioned in the narrative for Area C.

Overestimate of Average Rainfall

Page 36 of the THP, the Erosion Control Plan (ECP) dated October 21, 2003, states that, “Per Plate B3 in the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Manual, this ridge crest location at about 800 feet elevation with an estimated average annual rainfall of about 70” (5.83)”.

The 70 inch estimate for the mean annual precipitation appears to be a significant over-estimate of the mean annual precipitation at the site of the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion. A USGS map of mean annual precipitation is shown in Figure 1. The USGS map shows that the mean annual precipitation is about 55” and is certainly less than 60". The USGS has stringent quality control guidelines and a through peer-review process. It is unknown what level of quality control and peer-review the Sonoma County Water Agency maps were subjected to. It seems prudent to make estimates of water-availability for irrigation based on the more conservative value of 55 to 60 inches.

As a check on the reliability of the USGS rainfall map I used rainfall data collected near the project site. The Smith family has collected rainfall data for 18 years on Annapolis Road, approximately 2.3 miles from the Sleepy Hollow property. Figure 3 and Table 1 show the data collected near Annapolis and the Fort Ross data. I developed a linear regression model to predict the Smith rainfall data given the Fort Ross rainfall data. The Fort Ross rainfall data explained 97% of the variability in the Smith family rainfall record. I used this model to extend the Smith rainfall record to the same 98-year period (1906-2003) as the Fort Ross station. The extended Annapolis rainfall record is shown in Figure 4. The mean annual precipitation of the extended rainfall record for Annapolis is 59.55".

Table 2 shows Annapolis rainfall year (July 1 – June 30) data from the Independent Coast Observer (ICO), a newspaper printed in Gualala. The 28 years of record has an average of 59.16 inches. So, the USGS precipitation map, the Smith family data and the data from the ICO agree that the Annapolis annual average precipitation is just over 59 inches.

The summary statistics for the Fort Ross data and for the extended Annapolis area rainfall record are shown in Table 3 along with the estimated annual rainfall for various levels of exceedence probability. A 95% exceedence probability rainfall of 34.9 inches means that in 95% of years the rainfall would be expected to be greater than 34.9 inches and in 5% of the years the rainfall would be less than or equal to 34.9 inches. The less than 60” estimate from the USGS average annual precipitation map and the extended Smith rainfall record of 59.55” show good agreement. Therefore, it appears that the estimate of 70” for the average annual precipitation used in the ECP overestimates the Annapolis average annual precipitation of 59.55” estimated from local sources and confirmed by the USGS precipitation map by 17.5%. Therefore, conclusions based on the over-estimated annual average precipitation are incorrect and misleading.

Overestimate of Average Year Runoff

Figure 2 shows a portion of the map of mean annual runoff prepared by the USGS in 1974. The map shows that the mean annual runoff for the Annapolis area is about 24" per year. So, the annual average runoff/rainfall ratio for the Annapolis area is 24”/59.5” = 0.403 or 40.3%. This estimate of the average annual runoff/rainfall ratio for the Annapolis (40.3%) agrees very closely with the ratio calculated from the Caspar Creek data for the 1990-1995 water years. According to Ziemmer (1997) the Caspar Creek average precipitation for 1990-1995 was 1188.3 mm and that the runoff for the North Fork of Caspar Creek was 503 mm and that the runoff for the South Fork was 461 mm. So, the runoff/rainfall ratio for the North Fork was 503mm/1188.3mm = 0.423 or 42.3%. The runoff/rainfall ratio for the South Fork was 461mm/1188.3mm = 0.388 or 38.8%. Therefore, the use of a 50% runoff/rainfall ratio in the ECP for average annual runoff calculations would appear to over estimate runoff from the proposed timberland conversion by 25%.

Inadequacy of the Existing Well

The ECP estimates that once the vines are established, in approximately 2 years, that they will require only 20 gal/vine/season, which is equivalent to 1.35 acre-feet of water. However, the ECP does not estimate the amount of water required to establish the vines during the initial two year period. The calculation below shows that the water required to establish the vines is significantly more than the amount required to maintain them.

While the ECP does not present the volume of water required per year to establish the vines it does provide the following information about the water required during the first two years (page 38 of THP):

· “...a typical planting density of about 1,100 vines per acre”

· “... weekly watering for the first year or two of vine establishment”

· “... a typical design volume is on the order of 5 gallons/vine/week, ...”

· “...over a 4-month irrigation season.”

In discussing the water volume required for the established vines, the ECP claims that,

The volume can be provided by an existing well tested at 10 gpm, if operated 8 hours/day for 23 days each month over a 4-month irrigation season.

The following calculation shows that the existing well can not produce enough water to establish the 20 acres of vineyards proposed by the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion application.

A pump producing 10 gpm will produce 14,400 gallons per day, pumping non-stop for 24-hours per day. Each vine requires 5 gallons per weekly watering, so a total of 2,880 vines can be watered per day. At a density of 1,100 vines per acre, a total of 2.62 acres can be watered per day. The 20 acres of vineyard will take 7.64 days to water, which is slightly longer than a week. Therefore, the projected output of the well appears to be insufficient to water the proposed 20 acre vineyard on a weekly schedule. The above calculations are summarized below.

vines per acre	Pump hours per day	Pump minutes per day	Pump gallons per minute	Pump gallons per day	gallons per vine	Vines per day	Acres per day	Days to Water 20 Acres
1,100	24	1440	10	14,400	5	2,880	2.62	7.64

By reducing the planted area to no more than 18.3 acres, a well that actually produced 10 gpm could produce exactly enough water to just maintain the weekly watering schedule required to establish the vines. However, if the pump develops mechanical problems during the first two years of vine establishment, there may not be enough water to establish the vines. Furthermore, during sustained hot weather irrigation would be required more frequently during the first two years.

The minimum total volume required during the first two years of vine establishment if 4.05 acre-feet as shown in the following calculation.

vines per acre	gallons per vine	acres	weekly water gallons	Weekly Water Cubic Feet	Weekly Water acre Feet	Number of Weeks	Required Irrigation per season acre feet
1,100	5	20	110,000	14,705	0.34	12	4.05

Pumping 24-hours per day for 12 weeks will produce a total of 3.71 acre-feet or 0.34 acre-feet less than the total volume of required to establish 20 acres of new vines.

The above calculations give estimates of the minimum amount of water required to establish vines on 20 acres. The calculations assume near normal summer conditions and rainfall during the previous winter. Additional water may be required during extended hot weather. The above calculations also do not account for water for frost protection. The site for the proposed vineyard is on a ridge, so it will not be subject to the effects of cold air sinking into valleys. However, even ridge-top sites can experience below freezing temperatures in Sonoma County. Occasionally, artic air masses move into the area and cause temperatures to drop well below freezing. It is expected that the total number of days requiring frost protection on a ridge will be less than the number of days required for a valley site.

Failure to provide sufficient water for frost protection may result in the loss of the vineyard. The amount of water required for frost protection is significantly greater than can be supplied by a well pumping at 10 gpm since all of the vines will have to be watered simultaneously. Therefore, CDF should require that the applicant estimate the amount of water required per night during the frost season and explain how it will be supplied.

The above discussion demonstrates that the existing well is inadequate to establish 20 acres of new vines. The above analysis does not answer the crucial question of whether the existing well can be pumped at a sustained rate of 10 gpm for 12 weeks. Another question that needs to be addressed is whether the aquifer that supplies the existing well is large enough to supply the total volume of water needed to establish the new vines and to maintain the vines once they are established.

The ECP (p 38 of the THP) states that:

For a typical planting density of about 1,100 vines/acre, the seasonal water demand at 20 gal/vine/season over 20 acres is about 1.3 acre-feet. This is about equal to the seasonal evapotranspiration from an acre of forest, as noted above. The volume can be provided by an existing well tested at 10 gpm, if operated 8 hours/day for 23 days/month over a 4-month irrigation season. To facilitate irrigation scheduling, one or more moderately sized storage tanks will be used and the vineyard will be divided into blocks of about 2 acres.

The RWQCB PHI report notes that,

A 10-gallon per minute well will be used to irrigate the 25-acre vineyard. The RPF indicated that a four-hour pump test had been conducted, with a significant draw down,. Normally, pump tests are conducted for 72 hours and the draw down is not significant, especially given the low rate of production. It is not clear why the pump test for the proposed irrigation well was only conducted for 4 hours, but a pump test for this short duration may not be adequate to ensure that the water supply and/or the proposed well are adequate for the intended water use on this site.

I am informed that the RPF passing official well report around the table at the CDF second review of the THP/Conversion. A copy was promised to be added to the THP/TCP file by the RPF but the owner objected. However, I have heard that the owner told an adjacent neighbor, who was at second review and recorded the well information, that the well produced 7 gpm, not 10 gpm. I am told that the official well report that was passed around at the Second Review meeting showed that the depth of the well was 180 feet; that the static water level prior to the test was 32 feet and that the drillers performed a two-hour test at 10 gpm and measured a 175 feet of drawdown. The Mitigated Negative Declaration cites the well being 250 feet deep.

The well information that was reportedly revealed at the Second Review meeting and the neighbor’s claim that the owner said that the well yield was 7 gpm supports the above analysis that the well is inadequate to water the proposed 20 acres of vineyard, especially during the first two years when the vines are being established.

Much more information is required to determine if the existing well can supply the proposed vineyard, especially during the establishment of the vines. The RPF told Mr. Gergus that a four hour pump test had been conducted and that significant draw down occurred. Specifics about the draw down observed during the test and at the end of the test, depth of well, level of the pump, size of the well casing and discharge rate were not given to Mr. Gergus. Mr. Gergus, RWQCB, has expressed concern that

...a pump test for this short duration may not be adequate to ensure that the water supply and/or the proposed well are adequate for the intended water use on this site.

FPA Rule 1105.2, quoted below, requires that adequate quality and quantity of water be available to ensure the economic viability of the project.

1105.2 Director's Determination

The Director shall determine the applicant's bona fide intention to convert in light of the present and predicted economic ability of the applicant to carry out the proposed conversion; the environmental feasibility of the conversion, including, but not limited to, suitability of soils, slope, aspect, quality and quantity of water, and micro-climate; adequacy and feasibility of possible measures for mitigation of signification adverse environmental impacts; and other foreseeable factors necessary for successful conversion to the proposed land use.

It is also in the applicant’s interest to verify that the well will be able to supply the water needed to establish and maintain the proposed vineyard. For an unconfined aquifer, such as the Ohlson Formation, a well test should be conducted at a constant discharge rate for a minimum of 72 hours. A properly conducted 72-hour constant-discharge pump test will be able discern if the existing well can supply the water needed to establish and maintain the vineyard.

Therefore, CDF should require that a 72-hour constant-discharge pump test be conducted by a qualified hydrogeologist according to the standards set forth on pages 535 to 579 of Groundwater and Wells by Fletcher G. Driscoll, Second Edition, 1986. The 72-hour constant-discharge well test should be conducted in late August or early September prior to any rainfall. The groundwater level in the well should be monitored prior to the 72-hour pump test.

The 72-hour constant-discharge well test is necessary to determine if the existing well can produce the 10 gallon per minute discharge rate that the ECP claims would be sufficient to irrigate the twenty acre vineyard. However, the 10 gpm claimed output of the well does not appear to be sufficient to irrigate the vineyard.

The above discussion shows that it is crucial to prove, by a 72-hour constant-discharge well test that the existing well can produce 10 gpm over a sustained period of 12 weeks with non-stop pumping. In addition to demonstrating that the well can produce the claimed 10 gpm during a sustained period of pumping, it is also critical that estimates of the aquifer (Ohlson Ranch Formation) characteristics be determined so that estimates of the sustained yield of the aquifer can be made. This is particularly important since the Ohlson Ranch Formation is limited in extent.

The assessment of the aquifer characteristics should also include an analysis of the affect of pumping the well on the spring and the Class II watercourse in the southeastern corner of the plan.

Dry Season Flow

The Caspar Creek watershed studies suggest that the removal of trees increases summer streamflow because less moisture is removed from soil moisture storage by the replacement vegetation than was used by the trees. In general this is true but in itself is insufficient to estimate the expected impacts on the Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion.

O’Conner Environmental (March 2002) prepared an, Assessment of Potential Hydrologic Effects, Fairfax Timber Harvest Plan and Conversion. The Fairfax Timberland Conversion is located about ½ mile to the southeast of the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion. The Fairfax Conversion is at a similar elevation. The O’Conner report for the Fairfax conversion argues that the North Fork of Caspar Creek was clearcut and therefore would allow reasonable extrapolation of the results of the Caspar Creek study. Portions of the North Fork of Caspar Creek were clearcut and so would, at first glance, appear to be directly applicable to a timberland conversion to vineyard. However, the North Fork of Caspar Creek has significant areas of north exposure (higher soil moisture content than flat or south facing slopes) and there are significant areas with slopes greater than those found on the Sleepy Hollow conversion. The effect of slope, aspect and relative soil water content were not examined in the Caspar Creek studies. However, the studies, particularly those of the South Fork selective logging offer some insights concerning the variables that were not directly investigated in the Caspar Creek studies.

The Keppeler and Ziemer (1990) discuss the factors associated with variations in the streamflow response. They note on page 1674 that:

High antecedent moisture conditions preceding and during the hydrologic year were related to an increase in the South Fork flow relative to the North Fork.

This reflects the idea that when the soil is at saturation, the actual evapotranspiration is close to the potential evapotranspiration (PET). As soil moisture declines the trees have to reduce their actual evapotranspiration to levels well below that of the PET. So, the Caspar Creek study supports the idea that the magnitude of any increase in summer streamflow resulting from logging depends on the antecedent soil moisture conditions. That is, there will be less or no increase in summer streamflows following dry winters. This is further supported by the 1998 article by E.T. Keppeler. The following quote from page 36-37 of the Keppeler article was overlooked by the O’Conner report.

On SFC, the minimum discharge (instantaneous daily flow) increased an average of 38 percent or 0.25 L/s/sq-km between 1972 and 1978. The maximum increase was 0.42 L/s/sq-km in 1973, the final year of timber harvesting on this watershed. No increases were detected in 1977, the driest year of record. Summer discharge minimum returned to prelogging levels beginning in 1979. (Emphasis added).

The effect of removing trees on summer streamflow is also not uniform in space. The Caspar Creek study can be seen to support the idea that removing trees from drier sites will have less impact on summer streamflow than removing trees from wetter sites especially those with nearly saturated soil. Since most of the Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion is on flat ground or on south facing slopes, it is reasonable to expect that the trees will be removed from relatively dry sites. In contrast, a significant portion of the North Fork of Caspar Creek faces north and so would be expected to have higher soil moisture content. In addition, the clearcuts in the North Fork of Caspar Creek probably removed trees that were closer to the stream channel network and so grew on sites with elevated soil moisture than the trees that will be removed as part of the Sleepy Hollow conversion. So, the actual change in summer streamflow may be significantly less downstream of the Sleepy Hollow conversion than the changes seen in the Caspar Creek study.

Studies presented in Dunne and Leopold (pages 253-274) show that areas with saturated or nearly saturated soil moisture conditions tend to be concentrated on the hillslopes above stream channels. The saturated area tends to contract as the time after precipitation increases but the saturated area continues to be centered on the stream channel network. These studies support the idea that the location of tree removal, with respect to topographic position, plays a significant role in determining the response of the summer low flow to logging.

Another significant difference between the clearcuts on the North Fork of Caspar Creek and the Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion is the installation of the subsurface drain system in the vineyard after the trees are removed. The Caspar Creek study sheds no light on how the vineyard drain system may impact the peak discharges and the summer low flows in upper Little Creek.

Furthermore, properly assessing the impacts of the hydrologic changes associated with the timberland conversion should not be based on “average conditions” but on extremes. During dry years there may be no increase in summer streamflow associated with the removal of trees during the timberland conversion. And in fact, the extensive vineyard drainage system may lead to a significant decrease in summer flows because the piping system will speed the draining of the soil.

Water Budget

A detailed water budget should be prepared for this project as part of an EIR. The discussion of vineyard water use, dry season flows and the effects of converting a forest to vineyards are discussed separately and have not been linked. The water budget must like the increased storm flows, decreased deep percolation to the groundwater table, and consumption of groundwater to water the vineyard.

Conversion of forest to vineyard will change the infiltration and canopy interception processes. The conversion will result in greater storm flows. The forest that will be removed is on flat to south-facing slope, the removal of the trees may not increase summer streamflow since it is unlikely that tree roots are in contact with the water table. The trees are most likely drawing water from the unsaturated soil on the hillslopes. However, the use of the well to water the vineyard will diminish the volume of water stored in the water table by at least 4.05 acre-feet per year.

A detailed water budget needs site-specific information that can only be obtained by performing a 72-hour constant-discharge pump test to determine the aquifer characteristics.

Increased Peak Flows to Little Creek

The ECP analysis of peak flows is flawed. On page 36 of the THP, the ECP states that:

Peak Flows: Estimates of surface runoff and associated flow rates are necessary for drainage design to meet erosion control objectives. Peak flow rate estimates were developed using Rational Method procedures. Per Plate B3 in the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Manual, this ridge crest location at about 800 feet elevation with an estimated average annual rainfall of about 70” (5.83’). For the 100-year 15-minute storm at 2.4 inches/hour and a 45% runoff factor, design flows are estimated at Q=.45*2.4*(70/30) = 2.52 cubit feet per second per acre. Peak flows for the USDA Type II storms expected in coastal California have relatively short duration, with the flows noted expected for only a matter of minutes. In a 24-hour period, estimated flow rates will exceed 2/3 of the values noted for only about an hour.

Time of Concentration and peak flows from individual vineyard subwatersheds will be similar for both pre-construction and post-construction conditions. Piped drainage is not believed required in the proposed vineyards because vineyard development has been excluded from areas of concentrated flows, including all Class III waterways. Runoff patterns will not be modified. The post-construction condition of permanent grass cover crop is expected to have similar infiltration and frictional characteristics as the existing second growth harvest. (emphasis added)

The ECP claims that there will be no change in peak runoff from the Timberland Conversion area. This claim is not supported by any evidence and appears to be in conflict with results from research at Caspar Creek and other locations.

The conversion of forest vegetation to vineyard will reduce the interception and evaporation f rainfall by forest canopy. Experimental data indicate that forest canopy intercepts and evaporates approximately 20% of storm precipitation in temperate coniferous forests (Dunne and Leopold 1978, pp. 87-88). Removal of the forest canopy therefore is expected to increase the quantity of precipitation reaching the ground surface, potentially causing increases in

Infiltration of water to the soil and percolation to the groundwater aquifers

Summer streamflow

Storm runoff

These potential effects are discussed below in the context of regional scientific studies of redwood forest watershed hydrology.

The O’Conner report anticipates increases in infiltration and storm runoff, but the ECP for the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion claims, without evidence, that no changes will occur after the Timberland Conversion

Page 80.5 of the March 2002 O’Conner Environmental Report on the Fairfax conversion states that:

In summary, watershed experiments at Caspar Creek indicate substantial increases in annual water yield, summer minimum flows, and storm runoff following clearcut harvest in the North Fork Caspar Creek. In addition, suspended sediment yield for small watersheds (about 25 to 70 acres) increased substantially. Increased annual water yield is due largely to increased storm runoff which results from decreased canopy interception of rainfall and increased soil moisture; increased summer flows are significant, but represent a smaller portion of the increased annual yield. Increased summer minimum flows result primarily from reduced growing-season evapotranspiration and higher soil moisture. The increasing trend in these parameters and approximate magnitude of change is likely to be similar conversion of forest to vineyard at the project site near Annapolis. (emphasis added)

The Caspar Creek study, cited by O’Conner, presents evidence from a watershed near Fort Bragg, CA that demonstrates that peak flows (storm runoff) are increased by clearcutting. Clearcutting is a required step in the Timberland Conversion process. Therefore, it is likely that the upper portion of Little Creek, closest to the conversion area, will experience a significant increase. The Caspar Creek studies found a mean peak flow increase of 27% for storms with a 2-year recurrence interval on clearcut watersheds ranging from 25 to 67 acres (O’Conner Environmental, March 2002, p80.5). The increase in peak flow diminishes as the proportion of the watershed clearcut declines. Therefore, the greatest effect will be near the conversion area.

O’Conner reports that:

Lewis (1998) found that suspended sediment yield measured from the small watersheds increased on the order of 200% (a three fold increase after harvest). Although the source of this increase in suspended sediment was not determined, it was suggested that a substantial portion was caused by accelerated channel or bank erosion associated with observed increases in stream flow.

Therefore, the expected 27% increase in the magnitude of peak flows in the Class I, Class II and Class III watercourses near the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion are also expected to have a significant and measurable increase in suspended sediment load. The Caspar Creek researchers suggested, but did not determine, that a substantial portion of the increase in sediment load was from erosion of the channel bed and banks. The expected increase in peak flow magnitude in the watercourses near the Conversion results in apparent violations of the three Forest Practice Rules listed below (emphasis added):

916.9(a)(1) Comply with the terms of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that has been adopted to address factors that may be affected by timber operations if a TMDL has been adopted, or not result in any measurable sediment load increase to a watercourse system or lake.

916.9(a)(2) Not result in any measurable decrease in the stability of a watercourse channel or of a watercourse or lake bank.

916.9(a)(7) Result in no substantial increases in peak flows or large flood frequency.

The expected increases in peak flows will violate 916.9(a)(7). The expected increase in peak flows from the timberland conversion will measurably decrease the stability of the bed and banks of upper Little Creek in violation of Rule 916.9(a)(2). The anticipated erosion of the bed and banks of the Class II, Class III and possibly the Class I watercourses on the Martin property in upper Little Creek will result in a measurable increase in sediment load in violation of Rule 916.9(a)(1).

The expected erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourses near the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion, as they adjust to the expected increased magnitude of peaks flow, may result in a direct potential adverse impact to the steelhead habitat in Little Creek downstream of the Conversion. The steelhead habitat in Little Creek may also be incrementally impacted by the sediment generated from the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion and other harvests or conversions in the Little Creek watershed.

Since steelhead, a federally listed species, are known to inhabit the lower reaches of Little Creek, a complete analysis of the environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the Sleep Hollow Timberland Conversion require analyzing the impact of increased peak flows and the resulting increase in sediment from the Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion and other harvests or conversions in the Little Creek watershed on the various reaches of Little Creek.

The ECP claims that (page 46 of the THP)

This observation is intended to place the proposed development within the context, and to point out that a zero net discharge is not an appropriate criteria by which to judge new vineyard performance.

However, the Forest Practice Rules quoted above show that the Timberland Conversion must not generate and measurable sediment or measurable increases in peak flows and must not destabilize and channel bed or bank.

Ignoring the potential environmental impacts from increased streamflows on the steelhead in lower Little Creek invalidates the conclusion that the timberland conversion permit for the Sleepy Hollow conversion project can be issued under the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. CDF should either deny the application for the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion or should require an EIR.

Future Studies

The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to provide full disclosure of potential environmental impacts to regulatory agencies and the public. Allowing portions of a project to be designed after project approval circumvents the full disclosure requirements of CEQA. In Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, the Court concluded that the effectiveness of mitigations based on a future study was uncertain, so the county could not have reasonably concluded that the project did not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. The court also found that the county's deferral of the analysis of significant environmental impacts to a future study was an inappropriate delegation of the its CEQA responsibilities.

The California Department of Forestry (CDF) is violating CEQA by allowing the applicant to delay final design of the drainage, erosion control and water supply plans until after the approval of the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sleepy Hollow timberland conversion relies on conceptual drainage and erosion control plans to determine if impacts would occur.

The discussion of Vineyard Runoff System Design Considerations also states (THP page 40):

Mitigation for any potential increased runoff rate in vineyards includes measures to limit flow velocity and exposure to unprotected soil as discussed in the Erosion Control Methods section below.

The Erosion Control Methods section (THP pages 42-44) is a list of design specifications. Final site-specific design specifications are not provided. Therefore, the effectiveness of the mitigations to control the magnitude of the peak flow cannot be judged. This is particularly troubling since the potentially increased storm runoff from the proposed timberland conversion would enter into either Little Creek, which is known to be used by steelhead. Increased peak runoff has the potential to damage salmonid habitat through increased erosion and sedimentation and to scour eggs from redds.

The ECP only discusses mitigations for any vineyard runoff in a conceptual manner. The ECP goes on to say that:

Watershed peak flows at vineyard outfalls could be developed as part of a drainage system design and evaluation.

CDF should require that this be done as part of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project. There is no need to wait until the forest has been cleared prepare estimates of peak flows at vineyard outfalls. CDF required the Fairfax Timber Harvest Plan and Conversion (THP 1-01-171 SON) to prepare peak flow estimates during the environmental evaluation of the Timberland Conversion (O’Conner March 2002).

Inadequate Mitigations

The Mitigated Negative Declaration lists the effects of the proposed Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion and proposes mitigations to reduce the adverse environmental impacts. However, in my professional opinion, some of the proposed mitigations are insufficient to reduce the identified impacts to less than significant.

Page 8 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration lists the five effects (a-e) of the Timberland Conversion.

(a) Sediment: ....Sediment movement from the proposed operation will be minimized due to the “no winter operations” requirement, the residual vegetative cover within the adjacent class III watercourses, and the use of existing landings, roads and skid trails.

The proposed mitigations for Sediment are insufficient to reduce the adverse impact of sediment generated by the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion to less than significant. The project will probably increase peak flows in the Class II and Class III watercourses within the plan, which will cause erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourses.

Note, the Mitigated Negative Declaration incorrectly refers to the Class III watercourses as being adjacent to the Plan when in fact they are surrounded by the plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has not been updated to reflect the fact that the PHI upgraded a Class III watercourse in the southeast corner of the Plan to a Class II watercourse.

No evidence has been presented in the THP or the Mitigated Negative Declaration that a permanent cover crop will not deliver measurable amounts of sediment to the watercourses within the plan. In addition, the California Forest Practice Rules have not been certified to protect the beneficial uses of water by the federal EPA or the State Water Resources Control Board or any of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

(b) Water Temperature: ....The proposed operation will have no significant impact on stream temperature due to the absence of any class I, II or III watercourses within the project.

This claim is false. There is a Class II watercourse and several Class III watercourses within the Plan area. This false claim is discussed in depth in the first section of this letter.

(c) Organic Debris: Trees shall be felled away from watercourses when feasible. Organic debris introduced into the channel of any Class III watercourse to the extent the flow is altered, shall be removed as soon as possible prior to October 1. Due to past logging practices, stream channels have in places, higher than natural amounts of large woody material in all class I and class II watercourses. (emphasis added)

The above bolded statement appears to be in conflict with the findings of the NCWAP Report for the Gualala River. The NCWAP report states that the lack of large woody debris in class I streams is adversely affecting steelhead habitat.

(e) Peak Flows: Increase in peak flows should not be significant due to the gentle terrain, broken ground, and the retention of vegetation and ground cover within the adjacent class III watercourse riparian areas.

The conversion from forest to a permanent cover crop will change the interception and infiltration processes and is likely to result in increased peak flows. Studies at Caspar Creek show that clearcutting, a required step in the conversion process, increased peak flow an average of 27% on small watersheds (25-67 acres).

Note the Mitigated Negative Declaration incorrectly refers to the Class III watercourses as being adjacent to the Plan when in fact they are surrounded by the plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has not been updated to reflect the fact that the PHI upgraded a Class III watercourse in the southeast corner of the Plan to a Class II watercourse.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration lists eight potentially significant impacts starting on page 33 of 47.

Potentially Significant Impact 3: The proposed project could potentially impact endangered, threatened, rare or species of special concern within or adjacent to the plan area. The potential degradation of water quality could impact fish and fish habitat downstream. ....(emphasis added).

To address the bolded potential adverse impact above, the Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes Mitigation Measure 3.4

Mitigation Measure 3.4: The potential degradation of water quality that could potentially impact fish and fish habitat shall be mitigated by not permitting operations between October 15 and April 1. The planting of a cover crop prior to the winter period and the designing and development of an Erosion Control Plan shall mitigate runoff. By restricting operations to slopes less than 20% and requiring setbacks from watercourses between 25 and 50 feet the impact to water quality and fish and fish habitat will be insignificant.

According to the original THP/Conversion Plan (page 10),

No operations are proposed between October 1 and May 1, excluding erosion control maintenance. All bare soil shall be fully stabilized by October 1 and operations shall not resume until after May 1 of the following year when soils have achieved a dry condition.

The original period of no operation provides environmentally superior protection compared to the weakened no-operation period proposed under Mitigation Measure 3.4. No justification is given in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the shorter period of no-operations. The portion of Mitigation Measure 3.4 concerning the no-operation period should be change to the language used in the original THP quoted above.

Mitigation Measure 3.4 proposes to restrict operations to slopes less than 20%. This should be clarified to read,

By restricting Timberland Conversion operations to slopes less than 20%....

Mitigation Measure 3.4 again weakens the language from the original THP/conversion by requiring setbacks from watercourses of only 25 to 50 feet instead of the 50 feet setback from all class III watercourse and 75 foot setback from the Class II watercourse. No justification is presented for diminishing the protection of water quality and fish habitat. Mitigation Measure 3.4, as written is inadequate to prevent significant adverse impacts to the environment.

Potentially Significant Impact 6: The conversion of forestland to vineyard could impact the hydrology of the surrounding area and the water quality of site specific class III watercourses, off-site class II watercourses, Little Creek, Buckeye Creek and the Gualala River.

Impact 6 has not been updated to reflect the PHI which upgraded a Class III watercourse to a Class II watercourse. The following mitigation was proposed to deal with Impact 6.

Mitigation Measure 6.1: To offset the degradation of water quality a riparian buffer has been developed (25’ adjacent to slopes < 30% and 50 feet adjacent to slopes > or equal to 30%) surrounding the class III watercourses. A cover crop shall be planted prior to the winter period upon the removal of forest vegetation to inhibit the erosion of soil and the transport of sediment. An Erosion Control Plan shall be designed by a qualified engineer and administered by a vineyard management company.

Mitigation Measure 6.1 is in conflict with Mitigation Measure 3.4. Mitigation Measure 3.4 limits operations to slopes less than 20%. Since operations includes the timberland conversion, Mitigation 3.4 means that no land with slopes greater than 20% shall be cleared as part of the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion.

The original THP (page 12) states that, “...class III watercourses will be given a 50 foot riparian buffer. During the PHI, a class III watercourse was upgraded to a class II watercourse and was given a 75 foot riparian buffer. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 6.1 attempts to weaken the protections offered by the original THP.

The Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan does not correctly reflect Mitigation 3.4 as described on page 34 of 47 since it fails to mention the restriction of operations to slopes of less than 20%.

Part IV Biological Resources of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not reflect the June 10, 2004 PHI since erosion of a nick point and a fill slope at Area C were added during the PHI are not discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mention of the class III watercourse that was upgraded to a Class II watercourse is also not mentioned. The Description in the Biological Resources section is also incorrect since the proposed vineyard is proposed to cover only 20 of the acres of the conversion.

As written the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not reflect the proposed Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion. The proposed mitigations are not adequate to protect water quality, water quantity, steelhead or steelhead habitat from adverse environmental impacts.

Conclusions

The initial study relies on reports that use suspect data and superficial and incomplete analysis to determine that there would be no significant adverse impacts to the environment resulting from the Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion and associated THP. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has not been updated to reflect the June 10, 2004 PHI. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reduces the environmental protections compared to the original THP in regards to water quality issues. No justification is given for the reduction in the protection for water quality.

A careful analysis using data from more than one source shows that a variety of significant hydrologic impacts may arise from the Sleepy Hollow Timberland conversion. These impacts include but are not limited to:

· Insufficient irrigation water for establishment of the vineyard and during dry years may lead to development of additional water sources with unknown environmental impacts or even abandonment of the vineyard.

· Pumping the groundwater within the Ohlson Formation may reduce the spring flow in the southeast corner of the plan.

· Significantly increased peak flows entering the class II and class III watercourses in upper reaches of Little Creek from several vineyard outlets, the increased peak flows would be expected to increase erosion of the bed and banks of Little Creek. The resulting additional sediment load may have an adverse impact on steelhead and their habitat in lower Little Creek. The increased peak flows may also have an adverse effect on the aquatic habitat of upper Little Creek.

· The potential for significantly increased levels of suspended sediment in the class II and class III watercourses in upper Little Creek. The resulting additional sediment load may have an adverse impact on steelhead in lower Little Creek. The additional sediment load may also have an adverse effect on the aquatic habitat of upper Little Creek.

The Project Description in the Mitigated Declaration is incomplete and misleading. The THP failed to properly identify a Class II watercourse in the southeast portion of the plan. The maximum slopes within the conversion area are underestimated. The RWQCB PHI report notes that slopes in the area of the misclassified Class II watercourse were measured at 45% which is much steeper than the maximum slope of 18% cited in the THP and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The steeper areas appear to have a High Erosion Hazard Rating. The presence of steep slopes with in the Timberland Conversion area probably also triggers the need to comply with the Sonoma County grading Ordinance.

The failure for the slopes and watercourses to be properly characterized may result in the public and Responsible Agencies from properly assessing the potential for significance of adverse impacts from the Project. Because of these deficiencies in the Project Description, and inadequacy of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, CDF should prepare an EIR for the Sleepy Hollow Timberland Conversion. If an EIR is not required, CDF should prepare a new Mitigated Negative Declaration and re-circulate it for public comment.

Therefore, the Department of Forestry should either deny the application for a timberland conversion permit for the Sleepy Hollow conversion or should require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Sincerely,

Dennis Jackson

Hydrologist

References

Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Keppeler, E.T. 1998. The summer flow and water yield response to timber harvest. PSW-GTR-168, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Keppeler, E.T. and R.R. Ziemer, 1990. Logging Effects on Streamflow: Water Yield and Summer Low Flows at Caspar Creek in Northwestern California. Water Resources Research, Vol 26, No. 7, pages 1669-1679, July 1990.

O’Conner Environmental, Assessment of Potential Hydrologic Effects, Fairfax Timber Harvest Plan and Conversion Number 1-01-171 SON, Grasshopper Creek and Annapolis Watersheds, Sonoma County, March 15, 2002

Rantz, S.E. and T.H. Thompson, 1967. Surface-Water Hydrology of California Coastal Basins Between San Francisco Bay and Eel River. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1851. Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources.

Rantz, S.E. 1974. Mean Annual Precipitation in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, 1931-70. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-613.

Reid, L.M., 1998. Cumulative Watershed Effects: Caspar Creek and Beyond. PSW-GTR-168, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Ziemer, R.R. 1997. Caspar Creek Thornthwaite potential evaporation, water years 1990-1995. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. See web site:

http://www.rsl.psw.fs.fed.us/projects/water/Thornthwaite.html,

Figure 1. Map of average annual precipitation from the USGS shows that the mean annual precipitation in Annapolis is less than 60 inches. The 18-years of rainfall data collect by the Smith's at 34440 Annapolis Road is 53.61 inches. The Smith rainfall data is in agreement with the USGS precipitation map.

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01
Figure 2. The USGS runoff map shows that the mean annual runoff for Annapolis is about 24 inches

Figure 3. The upper graph shows the annual rainfall recorded by the Smith family graphed next to the annual Fort Ross precipitation downloaded from the California Data Exchange (CDE) web site.