PAUL V. CARROLL

Attorney at Law

5 Manor Place

Menlo Park, California 94025

telephone (650) 322-5652

facsimile (same)

May 21, 2003

Mr. Allen Robertson, Deputy Chief

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

P.O. Box 944246

Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

Re: Negative Declaration for Codorniu Napa, Inc. Vineyard, Timberland Conversion 02–506, 105 acres; THP 1-01-171 SON

Dear Mr. Robertson:

On behalf of interested members of the public, I comment on the above–referenced proposed negative declaration and THP.

At the outset, I note that you have incorporated by reference into the negative declaration the THP and its supporting documentation. I assume that means that all comments on the THP by members of the public and other agencies are also incorporated by reference into the negative declaration.

First, the description of the environmental setting fails to satisfy CEQA. For the most part, the description is a description of the project, not a description of the environment surrounding it. There is virtually no description of the nature of the surrounding lands, their uses, and their environmental condition. In the absence of a clear understanding of the environmental health of the region, direct and cumulative effects from the present project cannot be meaningfully measured.

Second, the consideration of alternatives in the proposed negative declaration and THP is inadequate under CEQA. The consideration of alternatives must consider feasible, less damaging alternatives. None of the alternatives in the THP is feasible. The consideration of infeasible alternatives provides no useful information to the decisionmaker or public. Obvious feasible alternatives that suggest themselves are smaller conversions, say conversions of 20, 50, and 75 acres. These would meet the objectives of the landowner and are feasible, since they are simply scaled-down versions of the same project. Another alternative is use of the land as timberland. It is remarkable that CDF does not inquire of the feasibility of maintaining the land for the production of high–quality timber products.

Third, the consideration of cumulative impacts violates CEQA. It is now well accepted by the regulatory and scientific communities that CDF has failed to evaluate cumulative impacts on a THP–by–THP basis, leading to well-documented environmental harm. This is the conclusion not only of CDF’s own task force, but of every independent scientific and agency evaluation of CDF’s THP program. We attach many of these reports. They are remarkable for their common agreement that CDF’s program fails to effectively measure cumulative impacts.

The proposed negative declaration and THP continue that well–documented trend. First, they fail to adequately identify and describe other related projects in the region and on site that may combine with one another to cumulatively affect the environment. Second, they fail to identify any of the potential cumulative effects from any of those projects. And, third, they fail to analyze the potential cumulative effects of all of these projects in combination. For example, the THP notes that vineyard development will continue in the region for the foreseeable future. Yet, there is no attempt whatsoever to forecast the potential cumulative effects of such development, nor to analyze how those effects may combine with the present project to affect the environment.

The enclosed documents contain numerous criticisms of the THP process and catalogue its inadequacies in identifying, analyzing, and mitigating cumulative effects. The present THP and proposed negative declaration are not different from the many that were studied and found wanting in the attached reports and documents. For example, they do not include methodology for identifying and evaluating cumulative impacts, baseline data for measuring them, and adequate description of the current resource conditions. They assume the cumulative impacts will be eliminated by best management practices, a conclusion that has been forcefully refuted by any number of the enclosed studies.

In considering the proposed negative declaration and THP we ask you to consider the enclosed documents, not so much as criticism of CDF, but as evidence that cumulative impacts were not properly considered in the present case, and are likely to occur.

We attach the following documents:

Exh. A – Little Hoover Commission, Timber Harvest Plan: A Flawed Effort to Balance Economic and Environmental Needs

Exh. B – LSA Associates, Final Report: Conclusions and Recommendations for Strengthening the Review and Evaluation of Timber Harvest Plans

Exh. C – 61 Fed.Reg. 56138: Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Central California Coast Coho Salmon

Exh. D – July 28, 1997, Memorandum From Division Of Mines And Geology To CDF re THP 1-97-232 HUM

Exh. E – August 21, 1997, Memorandum From Division Of Mines And Geology To CDF re Bear Creek Drainage

Exh. F – 1997 letter from Alexis Strauss, acting director of the Water Division of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the California Board of Forestry

Exh. G – October 17, 1997, letter from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to CDF

Exh. H – September 11, 1997, article appearing in the Humboldt Beacon: CDF Says Logging Has Adverse Effect

Exh. I – October 14, 1997, Memorandum from Department of Fish and Game to CDF re fish habitat conditions in Bear Creek

Exh. J – November 25, 1997, article appearing in the San Jose Mercury News, Critics scorch forestry agency

Exh. K – January 22, 1998, letter from NMFS to the Regional Water Quality Control Board

Exh. L – February 11, 1998, letter from CDF to Pacific Lumber Co.

Exh. M – April 7, 1998, letter from NMFS to CDF

Exh. N – November 20, 1998, Water Quality Control Board, Executive Officer’s Summary Report: Cumulative Watershed Effects Assessment on North Coast Timberlands

Exh. O – January 21, 1999, letter from CDF to Pacific lumber Co.

Exh. P – May 24, 1999, letter from Dr. Leslie Reid to Assemblyman Fred Keeley; Dr. Leslie Reid: Forest Practice Rules and cumulative watershed impacts in California

Exh. Q – May 26, 1999, article appearing in the San Diego Union-Tribune: Logging regulation should be tightened, scientist says

Exh. R – Scientific Review Panel (June 1999): Report of the Scientific Review Panel on California Forest Practice Rules and Salmonid Habitat

Exh. S – Cumulative Impacts Analysis: A Report of CDF Director’s THP Task Force (July 1999)

Exh. T – December 2, 1999, letter from NMFS to CDF

Exh. U – 65 Fed.Reg. 36074: Endangered And Threatened Species: Threatened Status for One Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit in California

Exh. V – The University of California Committee on Cumulative Watershed Effects (June 2001): A Scientific Basis for the Prediction of Cumulative Watershed Effects

Exh. W – August 2, 2001, Water Quality Control Board, Executive Officer’s Summary Report: Timber Harvest Division Regulatory Coordination

Exh. X– The California Senate Office of Research, Timber harvesting and Water Quality (December 2002)

In one way or another, all of these reports, studies, and miscellaneous documents demonstrate that CDF has failed to consider cumulative impacts in its environmental review of logging operations in California. Unfortunately, CDF continues that trend in the proposed negative declaration and THP.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Paul V. Carroll