Le Colline continued

By popular demand I'm running the entire Environmental Impact Report for Napa's Le Colline Vineyard project first mentioned in the 10/4 Nose post (sans photos, sorry to say).                                

Comments on Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Le Colline Vineyard Project on Upper Conn Creek – Napa River

By: Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Biologist For: Rick Coates & Forests Unlimited September 30, 2016

Table of Contents
Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Qualifications 3 Key Literature Reviewed for Project and Field Reconnaissance 3 Aquatic Resources and Habitat Conditions of Upper Conn Creek 4-7 Project Likely to Increase Erosion and Peak Flow and to Decreases Base Flow 8-9 Project Destroys Valuable Wildlife Habitat and Poses Risk to Protected Species 9-10 Resident Rainbow Trout Deserve Similar Protection to ESA-Listed Steelhead Trout 10-11 Aesthetic Impact on Important Scenic Values: Linda Falls 12-13 Cumulative Watershed Effects: Conn Creek and Biodiversity Hanging in the Balance 14-15 References 16-18

Qualifications
I have been a consulting fisheries biologist with an office in Arcata, California for the last 27 years. I served as the lead author for the regional characterization of Pacific salmon stocks in northwestern California (Higgins et al. 1992) and also created fisheries elements for major watershed restoration plans in the region (Kier Assoc. 1992, MCRCD 1992, Pacific Watershed Assoc. 1994). From 1994 through 2003, I helped complete comprehensive fisheries, water quality, and watershed databases for 14 major northwestern California river sub-basins (www.krisweb.com). Clients included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Forestry, and the Sonoma County Water Agency. From 2004 to 2010, I worked for the environmental departments of five federally recognized lower Klamath River Indian Tribes to help improve compliance with the Clean Water Act and promote expedient dam removal (www.klamathwaterquality.com). I also assisted the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in development of coho recovery plans in southern Oregon and northern California from 2006 to 2010, including data assimilation and recovery plan development.
I have also studied the Napa River since 2006 for Thomas Lippe, Attorney at Law, and the Living Rivers Council (Higgins 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010, 2014); commenting on many proposals for timber harvests and vineyard developments, as well as on the Napa River Total Maximum Daily Load (Napolitano et al. 2009).
Key Literature Reviewed for Project and Field Reconnaissance
While all scientific documents that provide the foundation for these comments can be found in the References section below, several disserve particular mention because of their importance in terms of understanding the Le Colline development (THP/TCP 1-16-079-NAP & Napa County Permit P14- 00410-ECPA) and its impacts. These are the:

•   Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report: Le Colline Vineyard Project including relevant Appendices (Analytical Environmental Services 2016);
  
•   San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Brown 2016, Napolitano 2016) staff comments on the Le Colline THP 1-16-079 NAP;
  
•   Natural Resources Conservation Service (Oster 2016) memo on Effects of Ripping on Hydrologic Soil Groups;
  
•   California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wilson 2016) staff report on pre-harvest inspection for the Le
  Colline THP/TCP 1-16-079 NAP;
  
•   California Geologic Survey (Doherty 2016) staff Engineering Geologic Review of THP/TCP 1-16-079 NAP;
  
•   Public comments on Le Colline THP 1-16-079 NAP,
  
•   Leidy et al. (2005) for historic records of steelhead trout/rainbow trout resident presence and use of Conn Creek;
  and
  
•   Comments of Gregory Kamman, Hydrologist (2014) on the Walt Ranch DEIR (Analytical Environmental
  Services 2014).
  As noted above, I have extensive previous comments on projects with potential negative aquatic impacts in the Napa River watershed (Higgins 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010, 2014) and have excerpted from different previous works regarding various subject areas as they apply to the Le Colline Vineyard DEIR.
  In addition, on September 20, 2016 I did a reconnaissance of upper Conn Creek above the town of Angwin, in Angwin behind the fire station and adjacent to Pacific Union College, and above and below Linda Falls within the Linda Falls Preserve adjacent to the proposed Project. The red stars on Figure 1 show locations of fish and stream observations and are point locations. However, the reach from the lowest sampling site below Linda Falls to the one next upstream was surveyed by walking the stream channel.

Aquatic Resources and Habitat Conditions of Upper Conn Creek
The Le Colline DEIR is deficient with regard to describing aquatic resources of upper Conn Creek that borders the property to the west. A perennial Class II stream is noted in the THP and DEIR, but never appears on maps, including in the ECP nor is there any discussion of herptefauna that might be using it or its contributions of flow to Conn Creek. Also, the DEIR does not mention rainbow trout that are native to the stream (Leidy et al. 2005) and potential damage to their habitat from the project, which is a major omission. THP/TCP 1-16-079 and the DEIR operate under a false assumption that there will be no negative impacts to Conn Creek; therefore, aquatic resources need not be described or discussed. This assumption is false and the document consequently falls far short of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sufficiency (See Cumulative Watershed Effects).
Conn Creek was historically perennial and, according to Leidy et al. (2005), was found to have “large numbers of rainbow trout” in the reach adjacent to Angwin in September 1945 (Ott 1945). Somewhat more recently, Cox (1979) found numerous rainbow trout 400 feet above Linda Falls and behind the Angwin Fire Station in April 1979.
During the September 20, 2016 reconnaissance Conn Creek was dry at its intersection with White Mountain Road (Figure 2), but was on the surface behind the Angwin Fire Station but barely flowing (Figure 3). Two sites were visited on the property of Pacific Union College near the athletic fields and just above where Conn Creek passes under Howell Mountain Road. Temperatures were warmer than optimal for rainbow trout at these sites (McCullough 1999) and flows were inadequate for food delivery to support juvenile and resident adult trout.

At the upper site on the Pacific Union College campus (Figure 4), Conn Creek had very little surface flow and the water temperature was 20 C. Further downstream above Howell Mountain Road, flow had increased slightly and the water temperature had dropped to 18.3 C (Figure 5). Both sites had low aquatic insect abundance and diversity, with five or fewer pollution intolerant taxa in the Orders -Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). This is similar to the findings of Dewberry (2004) who sampled upper Conn Creek in 2001. Most macroinvertebrates were very small early instars that clung to the wetted surface of the bottom of cobbles. In addition to lack of flow, excess fine sediment filled interstitial spaces of stream gravels, which is likely the causal mechanism for very low aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity. Chironomid midge larvae, which are very tolerant of pollution, were very abundant. Invasive plant species like English ivy and Himalayan blackberry dominated the under-story at these two sites.

The character of Conn Creek changed dramatically in the reach above and below Linda Falls, with greater flow and the water temperature dropping to 15.3 C, which is optimal for rainbow trout (McCullough 1998). Three young of the year fish were observed in a pool below Linda Falls (Figure 6). Another fish was holding just above Linda Falls but moved to cover before it could be positively identified. It t is very possible trout reside in Conn Creek adjacent to the Le Colline project and a survey should be required to better assess potential impacts to the species downslope of the project.

Increase in flow below Howell Mountain Road is a very important factor in improving suitability for trout. In addition, habitat conditions were very good for rainbow trout above and below Linda Falls. Downstream of the falls there are numerous pools deeper than 3 feet as a result of water plunging over boulder cascades. Pools greater than 3 feet deep were also noted above Linda Falls, some formed in bedrock and others by large woody debris that adds to habitat complexity. There is a multi-tiered canopy of hardwoods and conifers. Willow, alder and oak comprise the under-story and large Douglas fir, madrone and Ponderosa pine make up the over-story. The late seral characteristics of the canopy help maintain shade and cool water temperatures (Bartholow 1989). Riparian trees may fall into the stream or have root systems that provide under-cut banks and branches that create overhead cover. Patches of gravel suitable for spawning were also noted during the survey. The Napa Land Trust has removed Himalaya berry and planted native shrubs on the forest floor in the Conn Creek riparian zone to promote ecological restoration (Palladini 2015).

The DEIR said that yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) were “not observed during biological surveys of the project site.” A yellow-legged frog tadpole was seen in the same pool where steelhead were observed. As noted by Pacific Union College Professor of Biology Aimee Wyrick-Brownworth (2016), surveys were insufficient to determine presence/absence of sensitive amphibian species on or near the project site and lack of a survey on the Class II stream within the project area and on Conn Creek bordering the Le Colline project to the west are deficiencies of particular note.

Project Likely to Increase Erosion and Peak Flow and to Decreases Base Flow
The DEIR makes the incredible and false claim that the “the Proposed Project would result in a decrease in sedimentation from the project site through the implementation of various erosion control measures required by the ECP.” Napolitano (2016) pointed out that assumptions related to the peak flow model in the Le Colline Vineyard DEIR and the Erosion Control Plan (ECP) were not met and that the project was likely to cause significant changes to the hydrology and the potential for substantial erosion:
“Please direct the project proponent to revise the Hydrologic Model, and as necessary the related vineyard development plan and BMPs to attenuate storm runoff increases. Absent such changes, we would expect the proposed vineyard development to cause or contribute to potentially significant increases in storm runoff peak and volume, contributing to potentially significant on-site and off-site erosion and sedimentation.”
The key concern is that soils in drain-ways constructed as mitigation for the project are to be ripped to a depth of three feet or more according to the ECP. U.S. Natural Resources Service concurred that the hydrologic properties of soils may be changed by deep ripping (Oster 2016) and conveyed that concern to the Napa County Resource Conservation District. As noted above, there is already and excess of fine sediment contributed to upper Conn Creek and additional sediment loading will further impair ecological function.
The DEIR obscures the fact that the property not slated for development upslope of Conn Creek is very steep. The DEIR states repeatedly that the slope on the Le Colline property is 7% to 29% while the map from the ECP shows slopes as steep as 63%. This means that sediment leaking from the project has a high likelihood of ending up in Conn Creek despite the DEIR’s claim that leaving riparian zones intact would prevent pollution. There is no detail provided in the DEIR about extensive rock walls that would be constructed downhill of the vineyard blocks at the break in slope to the inner gorge of Conn Creek. Adding this amount of mass to the top a steep slope has the potential to create landslides. Caution offered by Kamman (2014) regarding the Walt Ranch Vineyard applies to the Le Colline Project: If sediment catchments installed on drain-ways as part of mitigation are not maintained, they have the potential to fail and deliver substantial quantities of sediment, in this case to Conn Creek.
CGS (Doherty 2016) noted a bowl shaped feature within the Le Colline property and adjacent to the development as “likely a transitional landslide feature” with signs of recent slope movement with “pistol-butted and slightly swept second and third growth conifers” and also “historic to recent weathered debris slide scarps.” CGS (Doherty 2016) expressed concern about timber harvest above the feature adjacent to residences on next-door properties. “Harvesting above the headwall of the landslide feature can potentially change the hydrologic cycle by reducing evapotranspiration. Increased infiltration and resulting pore pressures as a result of reduction in canopy may increase the potential for adverse impacts to slope stability.” While CGS (Doherty 2016) suggested a 50 foot buffer from the top of the slope, that may not be fully protective given the size of the feature and the unknown location of failure planes and factors related to local groundwater. Property owners adjacent to and downhill of the property are concerned that they may be impacted by landslides triggered by the project (Lecourt 2016).
Potential for peak flow increases noted by Napolitano (2016) are also correlated with less percolation into the groundwater table and decreased summer baseflows. Kamman (2014) pointed out that soil ripping, proposed as a hydrologic mitigation for project development, results in disturbed and compacted areas will have only temporary benefit and that long term effects would cause a significant decrease in infiltration. The 2800 feet of road to be constructed as part of the Le Colline Project is also likely to increase overland flow and peak flow downstream (Jones and Grant 1996). Wemple et al. (1996) point out that roads actually function to extend stream networks, which is one of the mechanisms for peak flow increase and decreased groundwater infiltration (Figure 8).

The CGS report (Doherty 2016) for the Le Colline Vineyard points out the project is underlain by the Sonoma Volcanic Formation. The DEIR also notes that this formation “has moderate to high primary porosity, and as such plentiful groundwater resources are often found in these geologic units and it represents the principle water bearing geologic formation in the region.” This terrain in the Napa River watershed is known to have complex hydrology that can result in delivery of water far downstream and off site (Farrar and Metzger 2003). The project calls for extracting groundwater from a well to water 36 acres of grapes and operation of a second well for residential use. This has the potential to turn the Class II stream within the project area into a Class III and to reduce flow and possible dry up Conn Creek below the project. Neighbors of the Le Colline project express concern about increased groundwater withdrawal for irrigation of grapes and their ability to maintain their domestic water supplies (Stagg 2016). Professor Wyrick-Brownworth (2016) noted that Cold Springs also creates perennial and seasonal wetlands that may be negatively impacted by increase groundwater withdrawal associated with the project.
The County of Napa (2016) asked that downstream impacts to Conn Creek and Lake Hennessey be considered, but the DEIR dismisses those concerns. However, continued development that disrupts wildland hydrology in the Conn Creek basin has the potential of pushing Lake Hennessey past a tipping point where it could develop noxious and even toxic algae blooms (see Cumulative Watershed Effects).
Project Destroys Valuable Wildlife Habitat and Poses Risk to Protected Species
The DEIR makes patently false claims with regard to the value of wildlife habitat and the efficacy of mitigation to protect rare and endangered species: 1) “The THP includes harvest of trees within this habitat, which could potentially impact northern spotted owl breeding and foraging. With mitigation, this is reduced to less-than-significant levels.” 2) “The project parcel does not contain Critical Habitat for any federally listed species.” 3) “Biological surveys of the property concluded that no identifiable significant wildlife corridors are associated with the property or project site.”
In fact the Le Colline project will do irreversible harm to rare wildlife habitat that should be protected pursuant to federal, State and Napa County statutes.

CDFW (Wilson 2016) found that three acres of the proposed project are suitable for northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis)(NSO) nesting and roosting habitat and an additional 19 acres are suitable for foraging. The latter area has a sparsely vegetated forest floor that makes it ideal for raptors hunting rodents and other prey species. In total, CDFW (Wilson 2016) points out that 22 of 36 acres proposed for development is suitable and likely used by the NSO, since there is an active nesting and roosting site within 1.3 miles of the Le Colline development. The NSO is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and also under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Therefore, the area to be disturbed by the THP/TCP qualifies as Critical Habitat and should be protected. The barred owl, which is known to out-compete the spotted owl when they have over-lapping territories, has not been detected in the region. CDFW (Wilson 2016) notes that eight timber harvests have been completed or are planned in the immediate vicinity of the project that pose cumulative risk to the NSO.
Wilson (2016) stated the following with regard to the project and the NSO:
“ CDFW recommends a more rigorous evaluation of cumulative effects, including an evaluation of foraging and nesting habitat loss associated with the approved and pending timber conversion projects described above (‘reasonably foreseeable projects’ as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)), of NSO habitat provided in the THP. Such an analysis is also indicated under USFWS guidelines (USFWS 2011) to demonstrate that NSO habitat quantities will be retained at or above the habitat threshold for talk under ESA.”
CDFW (Wilson 2016) also found that the portion of the property that would become vineyard block E-2 is in fact an active wildlife corridor used by birds of prey, foxes, bears, deer and other wildlife species. They found the 15,000 feet of fencing to be constructed as part of the Le Colline Vineyard would be highly disruptive to wildlife migration, contrary to a claim made in the DEIR. The location of the parcel adjacent to Conn Creek and also the Linda Falls Preserve leads to high wildlife use and breaking connectivity could have substantial negative effects on a number of species and their local populations (Wyrick-Brownworth 2016).
The bat community detected on the property according to the DEIR is very diverse, with California myotis (Myotis californicus), big brown bat (Eptisicus fuscus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), long-eared bat (Myotis evotis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadaridea brasiliensis), the pallid bat (Antrouzous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). The latter species is a California Species of Special Concern. All these bats may be nesting or roosting in the rocky cliffs on the property and some species like the pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat may also be roosting in trees within the Douglas fir forest according to the DEIS. It is clear that the removal of timber associated with the Le Colline project will destroy and degrade habitat for numerous bat species.
Resident Rainbow Trout Deserve Similar Protection to ESA-Listed Steelhead Trout
Napa River Pacific salmon species populations have been on a downward slide as more and more of the watershed has been developed (Stillwater 2002, Higgins 2014). Titus (1994) found that southern California anadromous steelhead trout and resident rainbow trout were genetically identical and that they had the capacity to manifest either life history. Similarly, landlocked rainbow trout in upper Conn Creek likely have the same genetic makeup as Napa River anadromous steelhead trout populations. Consequently, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should afford them protected status because they are part of the same gene pool.
Napa River steelhead trout (O. mykiss) are part of the Central California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) that was listed as a threatened species (NMFS 1997) and has had its status subsequently reaffirmed (Good et al., 2005). Stillwater and Dietrich (2002) indicated that the run of adult steelhead was less than 200, which would put them potentially at risk because of lack of genetic diversity due to small population size (Gilpin and Soule 1991). Stillwater and Dietrich (2002) also measured flow of tributaries that formerly supported steelhead juveniles (Figure 9) and found levels over one cubic foot per second (cfs) that are mostly likely to provide suitable habitat for steelhead at only two locations in the entire Napa River watershed, upper Murphy Creek and lower Milliken Creek. This indicates that functional cold water habitat, such as upper Conn Creek just above and below Linda Falls, is also becoming rare and needs to be protected.

Aesthetic Impact to an Important Scenic Values: Linda Falls
The Le Colliene DEIR states that “the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.” In fact, one of the more spectacular features in the Napa Valley is Linda Falls, which is now protected in the Linda Falls Preserve. Managed by the Land Trust of Napa County, the preserve is a valued recreational resource by the community and considerable effort is being expended on ecological restoration (Palladini 2015).
Upper Conn Creek above Angwin dries up in late summer, although it was formerly perennial. Water from Cold Springs on and adjacent to the Le Colline project property helps revive the stream and keep Conn Creek flowing over Linda Falls. The development has the potential to dry up Conn Creek or measurably decrease its flow and, therefore, to degrade the scenic values of Linda Falls (Figure 10) and other waterfalls within the preserve (Figure 11) and diminish the ecological function that the community so values.

Cumulative Watershed Effects: Conn Creek and Biodiversity Hanging in the Balance
The DEIR is almost completely deficient with regard to cumulative effects analysis because it is based on flawed science that does not provide empirical data to support conclusions and also on the premise that mitigation completely obviates impacts.
The DEIR admits that there is considerable development near the Le Colline project:
“This estimate of vineyard development includes four known timber harvest and timber conversion to vineyard projects within 3 miles of the Proposed Project, including Ciminelli (THP pending; #P15-00006-ECPA), Heiser (THP pending; #P15-00389-ECPA), Abreu (THP 1-13-074 NAP; #P05-0376-ECPA), and a conversion of less than 3 acres that is being contemplated by
the property owner immediately adjacent to the Ciminelli project’s western border (no ECP available yet).”
However, the DEIR does not address how these projects in combination with the Le Colline project will impact wildlife and Conn Creek. In fact, on site mitigations for each project are not successful when the watershed as a whole is over its thresholds of disturbance (Collison et al. 2003). Dunne et al. (2001) point the problem that arises when projects are looked at individually and not in conjunction with all activities in a watershed. They warn that at-risk populations of aquatic and terrestrial species can be lost, if cumulative effects are ignored and anthropogenic stressors continued:
“The concern about cumulative effects arises because it is increasingly acknowledged that, when reviewed on one parcel of terrain at a time, land use may appear to have little impact on plant and animal resources. But a multitude of independently reviewed land transformations may have a combined effect, which stresses and eventually destroys a biological population in the long run.”
Furthermore, the mitigations contained in the DEIR and ECP will not lead to “less than significant” impacts. Logging, excavating and grading will increase peak flows, similar to effects described by Jones and Grant (1996). Timber harvest and the attendant increase in road density will also increase sediment yield and turbidity downstream (Klein 2003) that Sigler et al. (1986) found to impair rainbow trout feeding. Fine sediment will infiltrate stream gravels and reduce egg and alevin survival (McNeil and Ahnell 1964, McHenry et al. 1994) as well as decrease aquatic macroinvertebrate production and food availability for trout. Increased fine sediment can also block surface and groundwater connections thereby causing surface waters to warm (Pool and Berman 2001). The increased sediment load will also decrease Conn Creek pool depth and available habitat for both juvenile and adult trout.
Decreased infiltration into the water table resulting from project development, in combination with water extraction to water Le Colline Vineyard grapes, will deplete summer base flows in the Class II stream on the property and Conn Creek itself and possibly dry them up all together. If flows drop to where pools are isolated, trout will lose weight in summer, similar to the findings of Stillwater Sciences (2007) in Redwood Creek in the Napa River watershed.
Reeves et al. (1995) and Bisson et al. (2009) both found that, in order to restore conditions suitable for at-risk Pacific salmon species, watershed processes including flows need to mimic those with which they co-evolved. Bisson et al. (2009):
“Management of the freshwater habitat of Pacific salmon should focus on natural processes and variability rather than attempt to maintain or engineer a desired set of conditions through time.”
The current pattern of land and water use in upper Conn Creek and as proposed by the Le Colline project does not mimic the natural “patch” disturbance regime that would have prevailed before European colonization. Widespread development and land use (Figure 1) is termed by scientists as a “press disturbance” (Reeves et al. 1995) where the timing and amount of sediment, large wood and water contributed to streams have no resemblance to historic norms.

Urbanization and high total imperious area cause major aquatic problems because of changes in runoff and non-point source pollution (May et al. 1996), which is likely related to degraded conditions of Conn Creek within Angwin above Cold Springs.
The rainbow trout is the indicator species, but what is at risk is a cold water ecosystem of Conn Creek. The San Francisco Bay Basin Plan (SFBRWQCB 2010) extends cold water “beneficial uses” protection to Napa River tributaries such as Conn Creek as part of the enforcement of the U.S. Clean Water Act:
2.1.3 COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT (COLD)
Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. Cold freshwater habitats generally support trout and may support anadromous salmon and steelhead fisheries as well. Cold water habitats are commonly well‐oxygenated. Life within these waters is relatively intolerant to environmental stresses.
Historic accounts (Ott 1945, Cox 1979, Leidy et al. 2005) indicate that Conn Creek was meeting cold water beneficial uses from its headwaters downstream to the Napa River, but today it is dry in reaches above Angwin, stagnant and warm in town and only attains cold water ecosystem functionality below Howell Mountain Road. The reason that Conn Creek adjacent to the project has maintained flow and resident trout is because the underlying volcanic terrain and Cold Springs that gives rise to year around very cold water flows that would now be extracted for watering the Le Colline Vineyard.
The City of Napa relies on Lake Hennessey that is downstream on Conn Creek and it is concerned about impacts to water quality there from developments such as the one proposed. Allowing wildland hydrology to be disrupted without limit will eventually cause the reservoir to reach a tipping point and to develop noxious or even toxic algae blooms. Cold water coming into the reservoir year around would tend to moderate algae blooms and could promote stratification so that rainbow trout could survive at depths during summer. The Lake Hennessey turbidity data provided in the DEIR actually shows an increase in summer turbidity during recent drought years that may be indicative of increased phytoplankton and the onset of eutrophication.
The proponent of the project (DiCesaris 2016) states that “agriculture is the highest and best use of Napa County land.” Some wild lands need to be left undisturbed in order for society to have access to clean water, which is more essential than wine. Also, leaving some areas for the animals to live is also a key tenet of good stewardship and has practical value to humans. If we destroy the ecosystem on which the animals rely, we lose “ecosystem services” such as bats controlling insects that can attack our crops and be vectors for diseases; and foxes, coyotes, and raptors controlling rodents and keep them reaching plague proportions.
Urban and suburban development, proliferation of vineyards and other nearby development have pushed Conn Creek to near its tipping point and local wildlife populations are being impacted by habitat loss that could lead to loss of species diversity. The connectivity of the Le Colline project area to the Linda Falls Preserve, the properties unique geologic features, and its diverse wildlife make it much more appropriate for a conservation easement than vineyard development in keeping with the Napa County General Plan:
“The County will preserve land for greenbelts, forest, recreation, flood control, adequate water supply, air quality improvement, habitat for fish, wildlife and wildlife movement, native vegetation, and natural beauty. The County will encourage management of these areas in ways that promote wildlife habitat renewal, diversification, and protection.”

References
Analytical Environmental Services. 2014. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Walt Ranch Erosion Control Plan (Napa County Permit P11-00205-ECPA). AES, Sacramento, CA. 462 p plus Appendices.
Analytical Environmental Services. 2016. Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report: Le Colline Vineyard Project. Submitted to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection by Analytical Environmental Services, Sacramento, CA. 294 p.
Bartholow, J.M. 1989 . Stream temperature investigations: field and analytic methods. Instream flow information paper no. 13. Biological Report 89(17). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Co. http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_usfws_bartholow_1989_br8917.pdf
Bisson, P. A., J. B. Dunham, and G. H. Reeves. 2009. Freshwater ecosystems and resilience of Pacific salmon: habitat management based on natural variability. Ecology and Society 14(1): 45. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art45/
Collison, A., W. Emmingham, F. Everest, W. Hanneberg, R. Martston, D. Tarboton, R. Twiss. 2003. Phase II Report: Independent Scientific Review Panel on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of the Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks. Independent Science Review Panel performed analysis on retainer to the North Coast Regional water Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa, CA.
Cox, B., CDFG. 1979. Letter to T. Belt. Re: Conn Creek, Napa County. Dated April 19. CDFG, Region 3, Yountville, CA.
DiCesaris, D. 2016. Letter to Neighbors of proposed Le Colline Vineyards. Entered into record by Environmental Resources Management, Scott Butler, RPF, Castle Pines, CO. 6 p.
Dewberry, C. 2004. Development and Application of Anchor Habitat Approaches to Salmon Conservation: A synthesis of data and observations from the Napa watershed, California. Ecotrust and the Friends of Napa River by Dr. Charles Dewberry, Florence, OR. 16 p.
Dunne, T., J. Agee, S. Beissinger, W. Dietrich, D. Gray, M. Power, V. Resh, and K. Rodrigues. 2001. A scientific basis for the prediction of cumulative watershed effects. The University of California Committee on Cumulative Watershed Effects. University of California Wildland Resource Center Report No. 46. June 2001. 107 pp.
Farrar, C.D. and Metzger, L.F., 2003, Ground-water resources in the Lower Milliken-Sarco-Tulucay 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.
Good, T. P., R. S. Waples & P. B. Adams. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-66. 598 pp.
Higgins, P.T., S. Dobush, and D. Fuller. 1992. Factors in Northern California Threatening Stocks with Extinction. Humboldt Chapter of American Fisheries Society. Arcata, CA. 25pp. http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/ncc_afs_higginsetal_1992.pdf
Higgins, P.T. 2006a. Comments on the Napa River Sediment TMDL and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan Amendment. Performed under contract to Thomas Lippe, Attorney by Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Bilogist, Arcata, CA.

Higgins, P.T. 2006b. Comments on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Napa Canyon LLC Vineyard Project in American Canyon Creek Watershed. Performed under contract to Thomas Lippe, Attorney by Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Bilogist, Arcata, CA. 13 p. 10/7/06
Higgins, P.T. 2007. Comments on Timber Harvest Plan and Timber Conversion Plan 1-06-134 NAPA or Abbott Wall Road Vineyard Project. Performed under contract to Thomas Lippe, Attorney by Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Biologist, Arcata, CA. 21 p. 2/22/07
Higgins, P.T. 2008a. Re: Final Napa River Watershed Sediment TMDL and Habitat Enhancement Plan Negotiations. Performed under contract to Thomas Lippe, Attorney by Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Biologist, Arcata, CA. 3 p. 7/21/08
Higgins, P.T. 2008b. Comments on Draft Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams. Prepared for the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club by Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Biologist, Arcata, CA. 49 p.
Higgins, P.T. 2009. Comments on Proposed Basin Plan Amendment for Napa River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL Implementation and Protecting and Restoring Pacific Salmon (Cold Water Beneficial Use). Performed under contract to Thomas Lippe, Attorney by Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Biologist, Arcata, CA. 25p. 6/27/09.
Higgins, P.T. 2014. Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Walt Ranch Erosion Control Plan (Napa County Permit P11-00205-ECPA). Performed under contract to Thomas Lippe, Attorney by Patrick Higgins, Consulting Fisheries Biologist, Arcata, CA. 19 p. 11/20/14.
Jones, J.A. And G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow response to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, April 1996. Vol. 32, No. 4, Pages 959-974.
Kamman, G. 2014. Review of Draft EIR Walt Ranch Project, Napa, CA. Comment letter produced for Thomas Lippe Attorney at Law and the Living Rivers Council by Kamman Hydrology and Engineering, San Rafael, CA. 14 p.
Klein, R. 2003. Duration of Turbidity and Suspended Sediment Transport in Salmonid-Bearing Streams, North Coast California. Prepared under Interagency Agreement # DW-1495553501-0 between U.S. EPA Region IX, San Francisco, CA and Redwood National and State Parks, Arcata, CA. 45 p.
Lecourt, N. 2016. Comments on Le Colline THP/THC 1-16-079 NAP. Letter of August 28, 2016. Friends of Cold Springs/Conn Creek, Angwin, CA. 1 p.
Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. 246 p.
May, C., C. Cooper, R. Horner, J. Karr, B. Mar, E. Welch, and A. Wydzga. 1996. Assessment of Cumulative Effects of Urbanization of Small Streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. A paper presented at the Urban Streams Conference held at Arcata, CA on November 15-17, 1996.
McCullough, D. A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to chinook salmon. Published as EPA 910-R-99-010 . Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. Seattle, Washington . 291 pp.
McHenry, M.L., D.C. Morrill and E. Currence. 1994. Spawning Gravel Quality, Watershed Characteristics and Early Life History Survival of Coho Salmon and Steelhead in Five North Olympic Peninsula Watersheds. Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. and Makah Tribe, Neah Bay, WA. Funded by Washington State Dept. of Ecology (205J grant). http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_wadoe_mchenryetal_1994.pdf

McNeil, W.J. and W.H. Ahnell, 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning relative to size of spawning bed materials. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report-Fisheries No. 469. Washington, D.C. January 1964.
Napolitano, M., S. Potter and D. Whyte. 2009. Napa River Watershed Sediment TMDL and Habitat Enhancement Plan: Staff Report. May 2009. SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA. 163 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Species; Listing of Several Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead, 62 Fed. Reg. 43937-43954 (1997).
Oster, K. 2016. Effect of Ripping on Hydrologic Soil Groups, Updated. Letter to Charles Schembre, Napa County RCD. Sent on June 2, 2016. NRCS Area Soil Scientist, Temp, CA. 1 p.
Ott, E. J. N., Jr. 1945. Letter to City of Napa on September 17, 1945. California Department of Fish and Game, Yountville, CA.
Palladini, M. 2015. Restoring the Conn Creek habitat on the Linda Falls Preserve. Napa Valley Register, June 26, 2015..
Poole, G.C. and C.H. Berman. 2001. Pathways of human influence on water temperature dynamics in stream channels. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Seattle, WA. Published in Environmental Management. 20 p. http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_usepa_pooleetal_2000_pathways.pdf
Reeves, G.H., L.E.Benda, K.M.Burnett, P.A.Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A Disturbance-Based Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of Evolutionarily Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:334-349, 1995.
Sigler, J. W., T. C. Bjornn, and F. H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 113:142-150.
Stagg, C. 2016. Comments on Le Colline THP 1-16-079 NAP. Letter of September 23, 2016. Angwin, CA. 2 P.
Stillwater Sciences and W.E. Dietrich, 2002. Napa River Basin Limiting Factors Analysis. Final Technical Report prepared for San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif., and California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, Calif. June 14, 2002.
Stillwater Sciences. 2007. Napa River tributary steelhead growth analysis. Final report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California.
Titus, R.G. 1994. Historical Review and Current Status of California Steelhead in Coastal Drainages South of San Francisco Bay. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game by the Department of Forestry and Resource Management, U.C., Berkeley, CA 94720.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Northern Spotted Owl Take and Avoidance Analysis and Guidance for California Coast District and Interior Forest District. March 15, 2011. USFWS, Sacramento, CA.
Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones. 2001. Forest Roads and Geomorphic Process Interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. Vol. 26, 191-204.
Wyrick-Brownworth, A. 2016. Comments on Le Colline Vineyard proposal THP/THC 1-16-079. Sent August 24, 2016. Angwin, CA. 3 p.

An imperfect score

                                     Bunny Foo Foo (really)                                         

    Craig and Kathryn Hall are about to publish a semi-promotional book called A Perfect Score (“The art, soul, and business of a 21st-century winery”). Some of their fellow writers at Center Street Books, an imprint of mega-Hachette, are Newt Gingrich and Paul Rand, which gives you some idea of the modus operandi, which includes vanity publishing.
   This offering to reviewers is so light-weight you have to tie it to the toilet handle to prevent it drifting away, starting with the revelation that the 3,000-pound chrome monster rabbit outside HALL Winery is officially named Bunny Foo Foo and was made in China.

   The collective husband-wife scribes go on to tell us that, “despite homegrown political complications" - meaning citizens making their voices heard - "we love it here. What’s not to love about a region with an eclectic group of farmers, winemakers, marketers, business folks, artists, and more, all joined together by the appreciation of fine wine, and of living and working in this beautiful place? Oh, and awesome weather.”

Weekends begin when they “jump in the convertible with our two little Cavalier King Charles spaniels, and head toward our favorite trail-head… By the time we reach the outskirts of Calistoga at 8:30 or 9 a.m., they’re ready to romp. The four of us hit the trail. As we wind our way up the hill and look south, the Valley stretches out in front of us like a sprawling vine. We keep climbing and before long we’re so deep into the forest that we can no longer hear the sounds from the Valley or see anything but pines, laurels, and oaks, their branches intertwined and draped in vines. What a fantastic way to start the day!”

Apparently they don’t hike at Walt Ranch in eastern Napa, where close to 30,000 trees are slated for removal. “Our latest experience with trying to plant vineyards on a Napa piece of property we own is a good example of this bitter division and the difficulty in finding balance. In 2005 we bought a 2,300-acre parcel of land zoned for agricultural use called the Miranda Leonard Ranch [now Walt Ranch] , a stunning property with some views that actually extend 50 miles to the Golden Gate Bridge. We hoped that the vineyard potential would match its beauty.”

    But “because part of the parcel on which we wanted to plant vines was at a grade above 5 percent, we were required to do an Erosion Control Plan (ECP). The property is also large, so an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was mandated.” These, “it turns out, are complex documents written by experts hired by the county and paid for by the landowner. The purpose of these documents is to analyze the property in order to ensure that the overall project will not adversely affect the environment. At the time, California guidelines specified that EIRs should take one year. Naively we didn’t think that would be a big deal. As we write this ten years later, the county in its role as reviewing agency has yet to complete the final EIR.

    “We knew from the start that water would be an important issue. That didn’t seem like it would be a problem when two water experts reported that we had one of the best water areas in the Valley, with a minimum of 1.4 billion gallons of water—and much more likely 3.6 billion gallons—under our property. Our erosion control plans were similarly positive. It turned out that the development would actually help the quality of the city’s water, which is downright uncommon.”

    Incredible, in fact.

    “Nevertheless, our neighbors were decidedly displeased…At the Napa County planning director’s public meeting on November 24, 2014, tensions had rocketed to an all-time high. The hearing room overflowed with 80 to 100 people, many holding HALT WALT placards and wearing HALT WALT buttons. In July of that same year, the draft EIR, all 1,500 pages, had been released and groups quickly formed to oppose the project. Although no public meeting on a vineyard had ever been held, a decision was made to hold one about Walt Ranch.”

    The county had asked Craig Hall to speak. “He could have saved his breath… Tensions were high. One man came up to where Kathryn was sitting and leaned down real close. ‘You’re the devil,’ he announced… The next morning, a dead bunny appeared in the entrance of our St. Helena winery.”

    As the Halls see it, the core questions dividing the valley are “how do we preserve the natural beauty…, support the industry that supports Napa, manage tourism, and continue to sustain good jobs and infrastructure for our community? And can the Agricultural Preserve that the county adopted in 1968 be sustained in Napa Valley given the fact that wineries now increasingly want to sell direct to consumer, which means being tourist oriented?”

    They thus make the assumption that "event centers" are necessary, which is far from true. The “hopeful solutions” suggested are woefully inadequate and unrealistic, and they seem unaware that the Ag Preserve and the Ag Watershed are  quite different things, the latter being the most vulnerable to their own development plans.

    “Like it or not, Napa Valley is a magnet that draws people to her. So the question we really need to be asking is, How do we grow in a way that honors the Valley’s beauty and agriculture? This overly rigid protection of the Ag Preserve and agricultural zoning against any development—including agricultural cultivation, which is exactly what the Ag Preserve was designed to protect—invites litigation that ultimately could lead to the elimination of the Ag Preserve altogether. The truth is that by not allowing people to actually do agriculture in the Ag Preserve, extremists are putting the Ag Preserve in peril.”

    The fact is that no one is trying to prevent agriculture in the agricultural preserve, whose greatest enemy is tourism. That and real estate development have indeed put everything in peril, with the exception, of course, of Bunny Foo Foo.

                                                  *                                      

To order my book about the loss of American place go to:

http://www.amazon.com/Vanishing-America-Pursuit-Elusive-Landscapes/dp/B00A16UKCG

Rare baby steelhead susceptible to vineyard development

A recent study commissioned by Forests Unlimited surprisingly discovered infant rainbow trout and other vital wildlife in Napa's Conn Creek, downstream of yet another proposed new vineyard. This one's being challenged by environmentalists.  (Excerpts and photos below from the report by Patrick Higgins.)
                                               

                                            
    Historic accounts (Ott 1945, Cox 1979, Leidy et al. 2005) indicate that Conn Creek was meeting cold water beneficial uses from its headwaters downstream to the Napa River, but today it is dry in reaches above Angwin, stagnant and warm in town and only attains cold water ecosystem functionality below Howell Mountain Road. The reason that Conn Creek adjacent to the project has maintained flow and resident trout is because the underlying volcanic terrain and Cold Springs that gives rise to year around very cold water flows that would now be extracted for watering the Le Colline Vineyard. 
    The City of Napa relies on Lake Hennessey that is downstream on Conn Creek and it is concerned about impacts to water quality there from developments such as the one proposed. Allowing wildland hydrology to be disrupted without limit will eventually cause the reservoir to reach a tipping point and to develop noxious or even toxic algae blooms. Cold water coming into the reservoir year around would tend to moderate algae blooms and could promote stratification so that rainbow trout could survive at depths during summer. The Lake Hennessey turbidity data provided in the DEIR actually shows an increase in summer turbidity during recent drought years that may be indicative of increased phytoplankton and the onset of eutrophication. 
    The proponent of the project (DiCesaris 2016) states that “agriculture is the highest and best use of Napa County land.” Some wild lands need to be left undisturbed in order for society to have access to clean water, which is more essential than wine. Also, leaving some areas for the animals to live is also a key tenet of good stewardship and has practical value to humans. If we destroy the ecosystem on which the animals rely, we lose “ecosystem services” such as bats controlling insects that can attack our crops and be vectors for diseases; and foxes, coyotes, and raptors controlling rodents and keep them reaching plague proportions. 
    Urban and suburban development, proliferation of vineyards and other nearby development have pushed Conn Creek to near its tipping point and local wildlife populations are being impacted by habitat loss that could lead to loss of species diversity. The connectivity of the Le Colline project area to the Linda Falls Preserve, the properties unique geologic features, and its diverse wildlife make it much more appropriate for a conservation easement than vineyard development in keeping with the Napa County General Plan.                                             

                                                       *
 To order my novel, Nose, click on:  
http://www.amazon.com/Nose-Novel-James-Conaway/dp/1250006848/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362180145&sr=1-1&keywords=nose                                      

Always water

More from Napa's citizen investigator:                                                           

                                               The Private I             

    Under Federal law, Public Corruption occurs not just from taking bribes or providing excessive services to a constituent, but from engaging in a pattern of violating land use laws over a long period of time, depriving citizens of honest government. Is any kind of action on-going to hold Bill Dodd et al responsible for such a thing?

    I DO NOT KNOW ANY SPECIFICS, ONLY THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL MUKASEY HAS SAID THERE ARE PUBLIC CORRUPTION PROBES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA.  SEVERAL TIMES THERE WERE ADS ON LOCAL TELEVISION WITH A TOLL FREE NUMBER WITH THE FBI FOR PEOPLE TO REPORT PUBLIC CORRUPTION.  INVESTIGATIONS ARE HIGHLY SECRET AND ACCORDING TO ATTORNEY GENERAL MUKASEY, FEDERAL GRAND JURIES ARE ASSISTING.  

    Somehow I think Bill Dodd's efforts to change California's Government Codes, signed into law last October, was a way for Dodd to argue having these changes are essential to supply water to people during droughts - was it illegal before to transport bottle water to places like Capell Valley? - while it has a different reason underlying, which is "growth inducing" to help people like Craig Hall. After all, Dodd was a Republican and in order to get campaign support for run for a seat the Assembly, he had to CHANGE his registration to Democrat.

Is Fish Friendly LandSmart enough?

This letter's in response to an earlier one (see Sept. 26 post) by an environmental activist deploring the effects of widespread tree-cutting in the hills. The questions that remain are: if so much is being done, why isn't the Napa River in better shape, and how much political cover is being provided indirectly by claims like this for business as usual in the hills?                                                   

                     
From the Napa Register:

As we near the end of another harvest season, I ask myself, what’s different today than nearly 15 years ago in the way that vineyard properties are managed? Today, unpaved roads are being maintained to protect water quality, stream sides are being restored to provide shade and habitat, fish barriers are being removed, and water use is being more carefully monitored on site.

Nearly 15 years ago, a small handful of growers throughout Napa County were involved in this type of stewardship. Today, over 45 percent of vineyards and over 72,000 acres of land are being managed in a way to protect water quality, enhance stream habitat, and efficiently use local water supplies.

The Napa Green Certified Land program, developed in 2002 by a diverse group of over 20 stakeholders representing environmental and agricultural interests, helped propel stewardship to the next level.

Napa Green is a program where growers receive technical assistance from the Fish Friendly Farming and LandSmart programs to evaluate their property and then develop and implement a conservation plan that includes a site-specific set of beneficial management practices to protect and enhance the natural resources on their property. The plan is certified by independent third-party local, state and federal agencies with qualifications and responsibilities to protect water quality and endangered species.

Guided by professionals--experts in hydrology, fisheries biology, fluvial geomorphology, riparian restoration, erosion and sediment control, agronomy--Napa Green participants are hands-on environmental leaders working through the LandSmart and Fish Friendly Farming programs. They are implementing watershed-wide erosion reduction projects on unpaved roads in tributaries that are critical to threatened steelhead trout.

They have worked with the Napa County Resource Conservation District to remove fish migration barriers in the Napa River watershed, providing improved access to high quality habitat in local tributaries. They implement practices to evaluate and improve their water use efficiency for irrigation and frost protection. They are leaders in several reach-scale restoration projects on the Napa River and in the Bear Creek, Bale Slough, and Carneros Creek watersheds. They are working together, parcel by parcel, to manage their land in a way that is mindful of their stewardship responsibilities.

Pause

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time0:00

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Fullscreen

00:00

Unmute

Over 15 years ago, diverse stakeholders came together to discuss common goals related to improving the health of the Napa River. We talked about difficult issues, we didn’t always agree, we worked to find common ground, we agreed to a program, Napa Green, that would help growers and vintners meet shared environmental goals. The process wasn’t driven by regulations or the ballot box – the process was driven by a shared interest in protecting a special place, a place we call home, a place we work, a place we love: the Napa Valley.

There are pressing environmental issues, no doubt. Today, we’d be well-served to think about how we can best work together, like we did 15 years ago, to find common ground and address our shared challenges to meet our shared interests. Anything else will serve only to fragment our community and dissipate constructive conservation efforts.

Leigh Sharp, executive director

Napa County Resource Conservation District

Growing old illegally?

Here begins a series of occasional correspondence with a Napa County resident uncommonly knowledgeable both politically and historically. Her work reaches all the way into the halls of justice in Washington, D.C. , and though I can't vouch for all of it, I do find her work valuable and interesting, and she herself a fine example of engaged citizenship.

                                          The Private I
                                                    

    This recent industrial accident in the Ag Preserve south of Yountville, investigated by the Sheriff's Department, reveals - as does the wine's label - that a generic California wine is being aged in the Ag Preserve.  The wines contain no local fruit and - generic wines can only be produced in the industrial area south of Napa.

    Little by little more and more "label operations" with faux fronts are destroying our ag preserve, using our precious water, adding commercial traffic and more tourists to our roads, while operating as illegitimates.  It's consumer deception, even though bottles are properly labeled California Wine vs. Napa Valley.  

    While the Sheriff can investigate the death, only costly civil actions can restore our blessed valley.  Think of this as a label operation for Sutter Home Winery capitalizing on a local name, after they were chased out of th Ag Preserve years ago.

http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/sheriff-winery-worker-napa-resident-killed-on-the-job/article_c5d4f00d-108b-50ed-a068-e29062d9bf3d.html

                                                

A reader responds:

    Afraid your source is way off. Of course, "generic" wines are legally produced as well as aged all over the AP. They just must be correctly labeled (and there's the rub). There is no legal requirement for ANY pre-WDO winery to use ANY county fruit - it can all be "generic" and that is millions of gallons.
    And if they were using Napa fruit pre-WDO they have no requirement to continue to do so nor any requirement to reveal their sources. So, if they were producing a million gallons Napa wine pre-WDO, they can shift that volume to all non-Napa fruit (or bulk wine), nothing prevents that.
    In fact, they can apply for an expansion, claim that they were crushing Napa fruit pre-WDO (no proof needed), "shift" the numbers of that "Napa fruit" to meet the 75% requirement of their post-WDO expansion and never reveal their sources. This is the "source shifting" that so concerned Andy with Raymond's expansion. Big fight over this a few years ago with NVV - they won, of course.
    Only wineries approved or expanded post-WDO are required to use 75% Napa fruit - they can process up to 25% of their production in non-Napa fruit and that can also be millions of gallons of "generic" wine.
    Airport Industrial and within certain city limits (Napa): there is no requirement for any winery to use any Napa fruit but those are not the only locations legally producing and/or "aging" "generic" wines. So there is no "there" there…
    The "there" is in the fact that altho NVV polices the use of "Napa Valley" on NEW label applications - no one monitors what is IN the bottle. There are no requirements for wineries to reveal the source of their grapes in any Federal TTB reporting - and TTB is supposed to control the use of appellations (working on this but on hold for harvest).
    No one monitors the 75% sourcing in NC either - unless selected for audit - and now NVV has convinced county to do "mandatory" reporting that can't be verified to anything because no one tracks it - all very clever.
    Shhh at this time - but there is a really big story here that no one is looking at - it's not what's ON the label, but what's IN the bottle (EVEN if legal by current regs).
   The source is right that the Joel Gott operation is suspect - but may be totally within regs which allow and promote consumer deception.

    

The outer life of trees

                    This letter pretty much sums it up:                                                     

    

From the Napa Valley Register:      

  Program Is Covering Up for Deforestation

Have you ever heard of the story behind the story. The full story of the Napa Valley Vintner's programs that helps preserve fish habitat needs better context to the history, causes and environmental degradation of the Napa River. It can be mostly summarized in one word -- deforestation.

Since prime agricultural lands on the valley floor were converted to vines (large swaths of forest removed for vines) by the 1950s, the expansion of vines has been in the forested mountains surrounding the Napa Valley and through streams that flow to the Napa River that have been sadly dewatered and denuded for vines.

American Canyon, Suscol, Carneros, Milliken, Kimbal and Bell creeks are tributaries out of over 56 that still have dry season flows to the Napa River. You cannot have fish without water. Shame on us for not protecting flows to the Napa River, which now runs mostly dry throughout the fresh water portions of the river. Groundwater continues to decline and deforestation for yet more vines continues at an alarming pace, destroying what is left of Northern Spotted Owl, mountain lion, red-legged frog, Chinook and steelhead habitats, i.e. Walt Ranch soon to deforest 24,000 trees in the best creek and public reservoir watershed, Milliken Creek.

The wine industry is tapping into multi-million dollar grant opportunities (our tax dollars) to restore private rich property owners' riparian lands (Rutherford Dust) because the Napa River storm water is exceeding levees (to protect vines) carving a new channels through valley vines.

Why is this happening? It is happening largely due to deforestation on slopes. Healthy rivers flood their plains but levees disconnect the rivers from flood plains.

In the Napa Valley, levees were primarily created to protect vines from flooding. For the last 30 years, slope deforestation and vineyard erosion control plans pipe water off the mountain vineyards and discharge the storm water into the creeks causing increased rated of flows into the Napa River exceeding the levees. Hence, high velocity storm waters (jumped levees) are destroying rich valley land owner's vines.

No worries for the rich because the taxpayers are paying for their new levees while all the agencies are ignoring the cause of the levee breaches such as levees themselves, deforestation and increased rate of runoff from mountain vineyard developments. What a colossal failure of the public trust to restore the Napa River.

The PR for this “restoration” provides environmental cover for an industry that ignore the true causes of our environmental problems here in Napa County. Check out the most recent levee work at Yountville crossroads. Let's understand that the rich property owners are not donating their lands, but rather they are desperately fighting to try and regain control of floodwaters that are destroying their vines. Now, the new levees have to be set back onto their lands.

Why are taxpayers having to pay for the impacts of an industry that is silent on their deforestation practices, which is the major cause of valley floor levee breaches? Then they have the audacity to call their industry Green Certified. Our glamorous wine industry is green washing a nasty underbelly of deforestation for feel-good restoration.

Chris Malan

Nature in glass

                                                                             

My daughter, Susanna , a glass artist living in Berkeley (feralstudio.com), wants to donate a portion of the proceeds from her diverse genres (https://www.etsy.com/shop/FeralStudio) to a good environmental cause in northern California. There are so many good ones. Please send suggestions.