Mountain Resource Group

NAIL would like to correct any negative impression that readers may have formed via our web posting regarding the role of Santa Clara County planning department members and the watershed road grading in Aldercroft Heights.

The planning department did not accuse SJWC of building a logging road in violation of NTMP/CDF regulations.  Upon hearing of the creekside roadwork activity of SWJC, the planning department made agency contacts on its own to determine the veracity and extent of any violations, and encouraged concerned citizens to make those same contacts.

The County Planning department, along with California Department of Fish and Game and Santa Clara Water District representatives did visit the roadwork site on Monday morning, November 7. A report on the Planning Department findings  has not been issued as of Tuesday afternoon November 8.  Any claims by SJWC about the findings from that inspection are premature prior to the issuance of the report.

The Santa Clara Valley Water District did issue a report memo on November 8 which stated: "I asked if they had a winterization plan and there was not.  At the end of the project the bank had been built up significantly. This is the area of most concern. Having this large unprotected earthen bank without having a winterization plan has the highest exposure for erosion.  There were woodchips deposited in the bottom of the flood plain.  Chris explained that this was a miscommunication with the contractor and that the chips should have been disposed of off site." 

San Jose Water is also being asked to apply hay and other protective methods on the site, and to rebuild part of a creek bank that is now open to erosion.  The Department of Fish and Game has responsibility for overseeing this work.

NAIL will publish the full findings of the county report should it be made available to the public.

The planning department assures residents that they maintain an impartial role in such issues and that they strive to bring together relevant agencies for resolution.

NAIL considers its relationship with Santa Clara County planners and officials to be one of value and integrity and we appreciate their time and efforts.

MURPHY RESIDENCE

21976 GILLETTE DRIVE

LOS GATOS, CA 95033

 

 

 

Hon. Don Gage                                    10/31/05

Hedding Street

San Jose, CA

 

Dear Supervisor Gage:

 

I am writing to you because of San Jose Water Company’s submitted plan for harvest of redwood trees along the Los Gatos Creek Watershed from which it draws water to service us.  This logging would take place within ¼ mile of my residence as well as to other parcels and schools in the area. 

 

One would expect this logging for profit to occur in rural areas and not in the backyards of thousands of people or school playgrounds. 

 

I understand that San Jose Water Company operates under a franchise in the County for the purpose of selling water.  As far as I can tell, it does not operate as a logging business nor has a franchise to log for profit.

 

That this plan is being conducted for one reason is fairly apparent, and that is for monetary profit .   It appears that this would involve a substantial portion of some of the best trees that the forest has to offer at considerable risk to  and interference with the lives of thousands of County residents.  The plan appears to run into perpetuity. 

 

 

The San Jose Water Company claims that this is also fire prevention.  Ostensibly, this is in part the reason that the Department of Forestry has jurisdiction over the plan.  But does it have jurisdiction when the plan really is primarily a plan for profit and not for fire prevention, and when the private owner is under a public franchise to do business or to be in the position of managing its property for profit to begin with because of the franchise.

 

Further, that this plan addresses fire prevention and reduces the risk of fire appears to be pure speculation.  The area planned for harvest  was not part of the Lexington fire area and is a redwood canyon. My understanding is that it has been stable for decades.  The fog bathes this area frequently and the trees are “fire resistant.” What we do know is the plan would cut down the most fire resistant  trees in the forest---the redwoods and expose the forest canopy,. Based on these facts,  I believe that the logging would increase the risk of fire and not reduce it or prevent it.

 

In addition, what will the habitat do.   I do not think that it is safe for San Jose Water Company to assume that its residential neighbors can absorb the deer, the coyotes, and the lions onto their property, nor do I think that it is good judgment to let San Jose Water Company do anything that will promote this.

 

Finally, there is also an issue of erosion control once the logging trails and trees are removed.   As this area is designated a hazardous earthquake zone by the County, it is questionable to me as to how and why the County would endorse such a program on this basis alone.

 

Without a requirement that San Jose Water Company conduct an environmental impact study by a neutral evaluator or that it would be required to guarantee the water quality of its water by a neutral evaluator under its plan on a periodic basis, to me its plan appears to be a biased one.  With so many area homes and schools affected by this activity, the least that should be required are evaluations done truly by independent experts.

 

As a government  official who represents the people of this area,  I ask you to address these several areas covering these issues with reference to the plan.   If you are letting San Jose Water Company operate as a franchise in this county, the public should be able to assume that you would have an interest in reviewing a plan on behalf of the public which will impact their home lives, the area’s habitat, as well as its stability.   Thank you for your time.

 

                                                            Very truly yours,

 

 

 

                                                            Maryanne Zanios Murphy, Esq.

 

cc:CDF

Residents in the Aldercroft Heights area have been concerned about extensive road grading work being done on SJWC land adjacent to Aldercroft Heights Road at the Alma/Aldercroft junction. Although pipe replacement work has been done on Alma Bridge Road near that junction, it appears that SJWC utilized work crews already in the area to do some widening, grading and extension of a small dirt lane that has existed untouched for decades, used primarily by their security guard trucks.

On Friday Nov. 4, a resident contacted a Santa Clara County planning department employee regarding the grading work going on at the Alma Bridge/Aldercroft intersection.  The planning department contact was not aware of a permitted grading job in that area and promised to phone back the resident.  A few hours later the planner called and said that SJWC has apparently jumped the gun on creating a road for logging, and has started creating a road not in the NTMP and certainly not approved.  The planner called CDF and they apparently said they would tell SJWC to stop. NAIL will follow up with the county grading permit engineering department.

Concerned residents should contact District 1 Supervisor Don Gage at 408-299-5010 (phone,) 408-295-6993 (fax,) or at http://www.dongage.org and voice their opinions.

NAIL members please plan on attending the next NAIL membership meeting on Nov. 13 from 3-5PM in Whitaker Hall on the grounds of Skyland Community Church.

A great deal of new information, updates and instructions on participating in the public feedback part of the NTMP review will be discussed.  We need all NAILers present for this meeting!

To get to Skyland Church take Summit Rd to San Jose Soquel Rd.  Rt. on San Jose Soquel Rd.  A few miles down make a left onto Miller Hill Rd.  Continue to the top of Miller Hill (do not turn off the road).  At the top make a left onto Skyland.  The church is on your right.  Whitaker Hall is the building behind the church.

Address:  25100 Skyland Road.

To assist in the use of the facility, please plan on dropping a few dollars into the basket by the door.  Thanks everyone!


 

Issues and Concerns regarding
San Jose Water Company’s NTMP
Affecting 1002 Acres of Los Gatos Watershed

 Prepared by: Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging – N.A.I.L.

A community organization of residents affected by the NTMP

November 1, 2005

 

Increased Fire Danger:

 
o       Cutting a large percentage of the largest, healthiest, most fire-resistant trees weakens the forest and increases the risk of a fire spreading into our neighborhoods. 66% of the trees to be cut are over 36” in diameter. These are the most fire-resistant trees in the forest. This forested land has a long history of large fires and is considered one of the most fire-volatile areas in the Battalion 3 region, as described by the California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. (See CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION SANTA CLARA UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005 - attached to this document.)

• The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the fact that commercial logging increases fire risk. Sources for this evidence include the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and the US Department of Agriculture. "Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity."
                         -  Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, 1996. Final Report to
                          Congress
  
  

o       We support activities that reduce ladder fuels. However, such fire suppressant efforts should not be funded by activities that increase fire danger and harm the community in a variety of ways. Logging slash will cover the forest floor to a depth of either 18” or 30” (NTMP states 30” which differs from other SJWC statements).  "As a by-product of clear cutting, thinning, and other tree-removal activities, activity fuels create both short- and long-term fire hazards to ecosystems. The potential rate of spread and intensity of fires associated with recently cut logging residues is high, especially the first year or two as the material decays. High fire-behavior hazards associated with the residues can extend, however, for many years depending on the tree. USDA (PNW-GTR-355)

• The NTMP contains contradictory information about the amount of trees to be cut. While Section 2 describes a 60% cut of trees over 18” diameter (the maximum allowable by law). Section 3 details a 40% cut of trees over 24” in diameter. It is important to note that once the plan passes, SJWC (or whoever buys SJWC in the future) can change Section 3 with little/no public comment and still be within the limits of this NTMP. The NTMP Document states in Section 2:"A well distributed timber stand shall be left after operations that is at least  40% by number of those trees 18 inches or more in dbh (diameter at breast height) and at least 50% of those trees over 12 inches but less than 18 inches."
  
  
• The plan calls for far more cutting of the most fire resistant trees than is mentioned in SJWC's previous public statements. 

SJWC letter to residents states that "about 80% of the total Redwoods and Douglas Firs remaining after the harvest". The precise figure in the NTMP is 66%. NTMP Section 3 page 71:
Present Volume Of All Trees In The NTMP = 337,837

Harvest Volume of All Trees = 112, 011 (33% of present volume)

Harvest Volume Of 36" Trees = 73,150 (65% of harvest volume)

 

Risk To Water Quality:

 

o       Los Gatos Creek acts as the primary water source for hundreds of local residents and as secondary source for hundreds more. Logging will take place on slopes along Los Gatos Creek and an additional 11 streams that feed into the creek.

 

o       Since timber harvesting and related activities such as road building are associated with increased risk of landslides and sediment generation, the planned logging activities pose a threat to our water supply.  Residents of mountain communities such as Aldercroft Heights and Chemeketa Park will be forced to bear the burden of increased sedimentation to their water source, brought about by the logging.

 

o       Large west coast cities such as Seattle, Portland, Marin County, San Francisco and Santa Cruz all protect their water supply by explicitly prohibiting logging in their watersheds. Why should Santa Clara County permit something other communities find it prudent to prohibit?

 

o       CDF in their response to the NTMP has raised this issue. In a response from CDF to SJWC they ask: “Given that the Plan Submitter/Timberland Owner is in the business of water collection, distribution and supply, have Class I watercourses (both fish-bearing and domestic supplies) been provided adequate protection? “

 

Decreased Quality of Life:

 

o       The proposed logging takes place in a heavily residential area. Over 2,000 people live within 800 yards of the logging area boundary. Thousands more live within 2 miles.

 

o       Five schools and a pre-school lie within 1 mile of the area. Some of these schools are within a few hundred feet of the boundary.

 

o       Chain saws generate noise levels of 125 decibels. Ambulances generate noise levels of 120 decibels; rock concerts generate noise levels of between 110-120 decibels. Source: League for The Hard of Hearing (http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm). Residents will, in effect, have the equivalent of a Shoreline Amphitheatre placed 300 feet from their homes.

 

o       We feel that the proposed logging will be in violation of local noise ordinances. Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance Section B11-192 states that “No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the unincorporated territory of the county or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or

otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated to exceed: 55 decibels for residential land use between 7:00AM and 10:PM.

 

o       Noise pollution from chain saws and helicopters, increased traffic from large, heavy logging trucks on winding two-lane roads, with the resultant damage to these roads, will greatly diminish the quality of life for Los Gatos mountain residents. 

 

o       Thee logging activities will harm the local ecosystem, destroying wildlife habitats (an endangered species – the red-toed frog-  has been found in the NTMP area – per the NTMP document)  and increase the risk that mountain lions and coyotes will leave the logging area and enter local neighborhoods. It appears via language in the NTMP that Native American archaeological sites have also been recognized.  Additionally, private property would face even greater exposure to landslides as the soil stability provided by large trees would be reduced significantly.

 

o       SJWC in their public statements had said that logging will only take place for 6 weeks at a time. Yet in the NTMP, they have asked for permission to log year-round. Even the CDF questions the need for this. This quote is from the CDF response to the NTMP: “Are full winter period operations, especially ground-based yarding, appropriate?” 

Decreased Property Value:

 

o       The NTMP proposal allows for logging in perpetuity. The combination of ongoing noise, traffic, increased fire risk, the slash and logged open areas in the scenic terrain are likely to create longterm property value reductions for Los Gatos residents in the affected areas.  We feel that increased profits for the San Jose Water Company should not come at the expense of thousands of residents.

 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION

SANTA CLARA UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005

(Reproduced from pages 27 and 28)

 

 

Battalion Three: (Los Gatos)

Battalion Three is located in Santa Clara County  and lies solely in  the State Responsibility Area (SRA) bordering the north of Highway 152; west of the Almaden Valley; then east of the Santa Cruz County line; South from the San Mateo County Line. The Battalion includes watershed for local communities, as this watershed flows in to many lakes and streams managed by both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Jose Water Company. The Battalion also is home to a large amount of Coastal Redwoods protected from development by open space districts along with County parks. The Battalion also has a number of small rural communities that have little or no governmental services.

 

Historically, the major wild land fire occurrence has been in the  remote and sparsely populated South western portion of the Battalion Three, the 1987 Lexington Fire and the 1994 Croy Fire were large structure loss incidents in the Santa Clara Unit. The 2004 Fire Cause Statistics are consistent with previous years equipment use being the leading cause for preventable wild land fires. The 2004 Fire Season (May through October) statistics for Battalion Three are: 1 Battalion Chief; 7 permanent and 2 seasonal Fire Captains; 2 Fire Pilots and 2 seasonal Fire Apparatus Engineers; and 25 seasonal firefighters answered the calls with one utility (circa 1986) two fire engines (circa 1985, 1991) one helicopter (circa 1968) and one helicopter service unit (circa 1996) responded to 488 separate incidents, The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has identified (SRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Moderate, High, & Very High - based on homogeneous lands and their fuel 27.

 

Santa Clara Unit

Fire Management Plan, 2005 loading, slope, and fire weather. In Battalion Three they are located by vertically dividing into three sections: the South section is a Very High (Loma Preita area), the center section is Moderate (West Santa Clara Valley Foothills), and the North section is High (Hwy 85 and Interstate 280)  Battalion Three, because of its unique combination of vegetation, topography, climate and population, has one of the most severe wild land problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. Wild land and urban interface, rugged terrain and highly flammable vegetation coupled with high winds make the South West Santa Clara County foothills especially unsafe for development unless adequate fire safe measures are taken. Without regard for wild land fire protection and water sources, continued development in the SRA will heavily impact fire protection and emergency medic services. Solutions center on designing an acceptable level of risks for firefighters and residents that measure all elements of that risk. Pre-fire planning, mutual aid agreements, standard response plans, Mutual threat zones and high fire behavior warnings are necessary elements to measure the risks to reduce losses from wildfires.

 

Mission Statements:

Primarily:

To protect and enhance Western Santa Clara County’s open areas and all who abide in it, their property, and the public lands in it. To respond with due diligence to all types of emergencies. We will assist local city and county fire jurisdictions requesting our assistance. Also, to continue to use proven methods of public fire prevention techniques such as school programs, Informational roadside check points. Foster contacts and continued involvement in the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council. Continue to Issue burning permits and aggressively pursue vegetation fuel hazard reduction inspections. Keep the good working relationship with those involved with the County building permit process to insure proper review of permits and compliance with the public resources code.

 

Secondarily:

To protect all California’s open lands between local responsibility and federal lands to reduce costs and losses due to wild land fires. Additionally, to be prepared for and major emergencies and natural disasters throughout California to the best of our abilities and train for implementing the Incident Command System to assist local agencies during earthquakes, floods, landslides, hazardous materials spills and possible terrorist acts.

 

Timber! There's plenty of it in the Santa Cruz Mountains is the cover story in this week's Los Gatos Weekly Times.

Jennifer McLain describes residents' concerns about the SJWC logging proposal, and highlights NAIL's activities to stop it.

Many thanks to Jennifer for her excellent article!

We strongly encourage residents to immediately contact Santa Clara County District 1 Supervisor Don Gage at Tel: (408) 299-5010, Fax: (408) 295-6993 or http://www.dongage.org and express their views on the watershed logging issue.

Please use your own words to encourage Supverisor Gage and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to appeal this plan. Supervisor Gage has invited residents with concerns to make those concerns known to him.

NAIL opposes the logging on four platforms:

Increased Fire Danger: Cutting a large percentage of the largest, healthiest, most fire-resistant trees increases the risk of a fire spreading into our neighborhoods. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the fact that commercial logging increases fire risk. Sources for this evidence include the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and the US Department of Agriculture. We support activities that reduce ladder fuels. However, such fire suppressant efforts should not be funded by activities that increase fire danger and harm the community in a variety of ways.

Risk To Water Quality: Los Gatos Creek acts as the primary water source for hundreds of local residents and as secondary source for hundreds more. Logging will take place along Los Gatos Creek and an additional 11 streams that feed into the creek. Since timber harvesting and related activities such as road building are associated with increased risk of landslides and sediment generation, the planned logging activities pose a threat to our water supply. Residents of mountain communities such as Aldercroft Heights and Chemeketa Park will be forced to bear the burden of increased sedimentation to their water source, brought about by the logging. Other west coast cities such as Seattle, Portland, Marin County, San Francisco and Santa Cruz all protect their source water supply and explicitly prohibit logging in their watershed. Why should San Jose Water be allowed to exploit watershed land when other communities understand the danger of doing so and prohibit it?

Decreased Quality of Life: The proposed logging takes place in a heavily residential area. Over 2,000 people live within 800 yards of the logging area boundary. Thousands more live within 2 miles. More than three schools lie within 1 mile of the area. Some of these schools are within a few hundred feet of the boundary. Noise pollution from chain saws and helicopters, and increased traffic from logging trucks, with the resultant damage to local roads, will greatly diminish the quality of life for Los Gatos mountain residents. In addition the logging activities will harm the local ecosystem, destroying wildlife habitats and increasing the risk that mountain lions and coyotes will leave the logging area and enter local neighborhoods. Also, private property would face even greater exposure to landslides as the soil stability provided by large trees would be reduced significantly.

Decreased Property Value: The NTMP proposal allows for logging in perpetuity. The combination of ongoing noise, traffic and increased fire risk are likely to reduce property values for Los Gatos residents in the affected areas. We feel that increased profits for the San Jose Water Company should not come at the expense of thousands of citizens.

NAIL Steering Committee

THE DOCUMENT BELOW CONTAINS THE FIRST NTMP REVIEW TEAM QUESTIONS. CDF WANTS CLARIFICATION ON THESE ISSUES. PLEASE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS.

NAIL Steering Committee

NOTE:
Any correspondence or materials regarding this plan which are not submitted directly to Santa Rosa, will not be recognized by the Department as part of the official NTMP.
This may result in an increase in the time necessary to determine if the plan is acceptable for approval.

 Contact CGS (Tom Spittler) @ (707) 576-2949 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF Archaeology (Chuck Whatford) @ (707) 576-2966 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact WQ (Richard McMurtry) @ (408)821-4658 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact DFG (Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald @(707)928-4369/964-1691 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF (Pete Cafferata) @ (916) 653-9455 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF (John Munn) @ (916) 653-5843 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF Biometrician (Chris Maranto) @ (916) 651-6860 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Notify CDF (Ruth Norman) @ (707) 576-2940 of PHI date and time.

RPF Questions to be addressed prior to PHI: (Please send your original response to the CDF Santa Rosa office, and make available at the PHI TO ALL PARTICIPATING AGENCIES)

1. It appears that San Jose Water Company owns approximately 6,000 acres. Please verify that the ownership does not include more than 2,500 acres of commercial timberland [ref. PRC 4593.2]

2. Additional Timberland Owners are involved in the proposed project for road and landing use. Their involvement is described under Additional Timberland Owners toward the top of page 2. Please add the following information to that description on Page 2:
a) For disclosure purposes, please clearly state that road and landing construction is proposed on their properties, not just use.
b) Based on information in the plan, it appears the construction/use of these facilities is not a “vested right” of the timberland owner/submitter and may be revoked at any time [ref. pages 314 – 316]. Please add a disclosure statement.
c) For plan clarity, please include a statement that although the use of the facilities on the neighboring properties would allow for more efficient operations, the NTMP is still operational even if use of the other timberland owners property is denied in the future.

3. Item 34 on page 29 is checked “No”, however, the stand descriptions in the plan initially appear to meet the definition of Late Successional Forest. Please provide a discussion that addresses why Late Successional Forest Stands are not present within the plan area.

4. Unit #8 (i.e. Helicopter Unit) is 244 acres and prescribes helicopter yarding with the option to use cable equipment. For the Department to adequately evaluate the use of cable yarding the plan must disclose how cable operations are planned. Particularly for the northern portion of the unit, it does not appear that existing facilities are adequate to conduct a cable operation. Based on the NTMP maps, the entire unit may be cable yarded. Please address.

5. The following questions pertain to Item 17 (Erosion Hazard Rating):
A. Please briefly discuss the III. PROTECTIVE VEGETATIVE COVER REMAINING AFTER DISTURBANCE rating of 1 for areas C, D, F, G & I. Given the harvest level necessary to generate an economically feasible helicopter operation and the prescribed canopy retention levels of 40 – 60%, is it reasonable to expect 100% vegetative cover remaining post-harvest [ref. top of page 124]?
B. Under Item 17 on page 9 the plan states, “See EHR Maps following Section II of the NTMP.” The EHR maps appear to be in Section V, on pages 212 – 223. For plan consistency, please review and revise as necessary.
C. Please review the EHR determination for factor rating area H on page 210. It appears that the rating should be High.

6. The following questions pertain to Growth and Yield and general stand conditions (The following questions are intended to solicit additional information to be used by the Department’s biometrician during his evaluation of the sustainability analysis):
A. Please provide a discussion in the NTMP concerning how WLPZs were considered in the sustainability analysis. Approximately how many acres of the plan area are in Class I and Class II WLPZ?
B. Based on Tables S6 and S7 on pages 66 and 67 there appears to be a deficit in recruitment trees between 6” and 10” dbh. Was this deficit considered in the sustainability analysis? Please address.
C. Hardwood occupancy will influence stand development over time. Please provide additional information on hardwoods, including stems per acre, for the pre-harvest stand and following the initial entry in each stand (vegetation type).
D. Item 14f is checked Yes for the need to reduce hardwood occupancy relative to Group A species. The information on pages 74 and 75 does not discuss hardwood reduction. In fact, the balanced conditions of the stands, based on conifer volume, suggest no enforceable reduction in hardwood stocking. Please address.
E. Vegetation types DF, RW and RWDF will be harvested from their current stocking levels down to approximately 40 mbf/acre, 45 mbf/acre and 45 mbf/acre, respectively. Growth rate is provided by unit on page 66, whereas harvest rate is provided by vegetation type on page 74. By how much will this harvest level exceed the current growth rate? Was quantitative data used to determine a balanced condition? Please address.
F. The long-term productivity of the DFH, RWDFH and RWH vegetation types is discussed on pages 74 and 75. The plan states that, “In this vegetation type, the volume per acre is at a level consistent with that level often found in historically managed stands. While this property does not have that stand history, volume targets do not require adjustment as in other vegetation types, due to the likelihood of good stand growth and vigor following the initial harvest entry. Therefore, the time period over which growth is to be balanced with harvest is the period between harvest entries.” How can the stands be balanced if all ages and size classes are not adequately represented [ref. what appears to be underrepresented trees in the 6” to 10” diameter classes]? While a stand that closely resembles an inverse j-shaped curve may not be desirable or even feasible, conditions must be demonstrated that shows adequate recruitment to support the balanced condition. A balanced stand is not one where volume harvested is forced to balance with volume grown based on 15-year intervals, but rather one that can provide a dependable level of volume over long periods of time (barring fires, landslides, insect infestations, etc.) Please address.
G. Please provide a table that identifies the number of acres by vegetation type in each management unit.
H. 14 CCR 1090.5(g) and (h) provide the Department with current stand conditions, as well as stand conditions expected in the future. Not only does the Department require this information to evaluate the long-term expectations of the Plan Submitter (growth versus harvest), but baseline conditions are necessary for the Department to evaluate changes in stand structure over time. In order for the Department to adequately evaluate the validity of the sustainability analysis, please provide the following information:
i. A pre-harvest stand table for each stand (vegetation type) with diameter class representation by 2” class.
ii. A stand table for each stand (vegetation type) after the initial entry.
iii. A stand table for each stand (vegetation type) when balanced. (Please note that the Department is not requesting enforceable standards, but rather desired stand conditions and adequate information that demonstrates that these conditions are achievable.)

7. Under 2. Identify any public roads that have not been used recently for the transport of logs on page 144 the plan states that, “Signs shall be placed at minimum of at least ½ mile intervals, giving consideration to sign visibility for oncoming traffic.” This ½-mile standard was not included under CAUTION LOG TRUCK SIGNS on page 31. Please include on page 31 so the LTO can comply with 14 CCR 1090.12(d).

8. The following questions pertain to geological issues:
A. MITIGATION POINT G8-1 is described on page 11. The plan states that, “At this location the road will be reconstructed on an existing prism that crosses a scarp approximately 24” inches wide.” The CEG’s report describes the feature as a proposed road that follows an old tractor trail. Please clarify. (If a tractor trail is being converted into a truck road, the road must be identified as proposed construction rather than reconstruction.)
B. MITIGATION POINT G6-6 is described on page 12. The plan states that, “No harvesting shall occur on the slide for the first entry….” The CEG’s report [ref. page 259] states that, “Because of the high rate of slide movement and because of the existence of upslope residential structures adjacent to the slide it was concluded that it would be prudent to exclude this slide from the proposed harvest.” The CEG does not appear to be limiting harvest to the first entry. Please address.
C. Where is G6-6 shown on a map? Please clarify.
D. Under 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION on page 247 the CEG states that, “Treatment of hardwoods is not proposed.” Apparently during the geologic review, hardwood treatment was not proposed. However, Item 14f indicates that hardwoods will be treated to reduce site occupancy. Please discuss if the geologist’s recommendations have been modified to account for a change in hardwood treatment.
E. Should the feature described by N7 on page 252 be mapped on the Operations Map? Please address.
F. Should the feature described by N10 on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please address.
G. Does the 3rd paragraph under Item 14b on page 5 address G1? Please verify. Also, please verify that the area is clearly identified on the map.
H. It is noted that all proposed roads on the Operations Maps are shown as abandoned roads on the CEG’s maps.

FOR CLARIFICATION

9. Please have the Licensed Timber Operator sign and date Item 3 on page 2 [ref. 14 CCR 1035.3(a)].

10. Under Item 5c on page 3 the plan states that, “The Plan Submitter, San Jose Water Company, shall be responsible for inspection and any needed repair and maintenance of erosion controls during the remainder of the prescribed maintenance period.” In the letter to the Plan Submitter/Timberland Owner on page 181 the letter states that, “The landowner is responsible for inspection and any needed repair and maintenance of erosion controls during the remainder of the prescribed maintenance period.” Pursuant to 14 CCR 1050(c) the Timberland Owner is the responsible party, unless a third party accepts responsibility and provides written acknowledgement of that responsibility to the Department. Since no written acknowledgement has been provided, please revise Item 5c from Plan Submitter to Timberland Owner. This is also necessary given the additional Timberland Owners or in the event that the timberland changes ownership.

11. Proposed road construction outside the flagged NTMP boundary is usually identified as ROW under Item 14a on page 5. While a majority of the proposed road construction appears to be occurring within the NTMP boundary, the NTMP map does show road construction outside of it [ref. NTMP map on page 33.5, specifically associated with Landings 23 and 24]. As such, please indicate the amount of area estimated in road right of way outside the flagged NTMP boundary under Item 14a on page 5. Please be sure to include the area on the additional timberland owners’ properties too.

12. Item 14e on page 6 indicates that Group B species will need to be reduced to maintain relative site occupancy of Group A species. The plan provides a two paragraph discussion concerning hardwood reduction. It appears that enforceable standards have not been provided. The following excerpts are two examples (bold added for emphasis):
A. “In order to maintain relative site occupancy of Group A species, hardwoods that will have a significant negative effect on redwood sprouts or seedlings may be reduced.”
B. “Hardwoods occupying growing space that would be suitable for planting redwood or Douglas-fir seedlings may be selectively harvested.”
Please provide enforceable standards for the reduction of Group B species. These standards must be consistent with hardwood treatment that will be necessary to perpetuate anticipated harvest levels described in Section III.

13. The following questions pertain to Sudden Oak Death under Item 15:
A. Please revise 4. on page 7 to specify all host material, not only hardwood host material.
B. The list of regulated SOD host species has recently been expanded. Please revise the list under List of all known Sudden Oak Death Regulated Hosts (as of May 23, 2005) on page 8 to include the recent species additions.
C. Please include a statement that the destination(s) of host material will be amended into the plan prior to transport of host material.

14. Map Points M5-1 and M8-1 are described under ITEM # 21 (c): SKID TRAIL ON SLOPES OVER 50% WITH HIGH EHR on page 11. Based on the plan M5-1 involves 150 feet of skid trail and M8-1 involves approximately 100 feet of skid trail. The EHR map on page 218 identifies the area as Moderate, not High. Please clarify.

15. The following questions pertain to Item 24:
A. Item 24e on page 14 is checked Yes. There is no Explanation and Justification associated with the Yes response. Is Yes the appropriate response? Please clarify.
B. The following questions pertain to landings:
i. Should the Yarding Method column associated with L2 (page 13) include Cable? Please review and revise if necessary.
ii. The map on page 33.6 shows L25 twice. Please clarify.
C. The locations of L28, L29 and L35 could not be found on any of the NTMP Operations maps. Please verify that they have been included on the appropriate map(s) and refer the reviewer to their locations.

16. Mitigation Points
a) MITIGATION POINT M23-2 is described on page 16. The plan states that, “A portion of existing road is located on slopes over 65% for approximately 150 feet at M23-2. The existing grade is stable and will require minimal ground disturbance to reconstruct.” The road associated with Mitigation Point M23-2 is shown on the map on page 33.2 as proposed. Please clarify.
b) The last recommendation under MITIGATION POINT M24-2 on page 16 is not consistent with the CEG’s recommendation. Please address.
c) Will elevating the crossing at MITIGATION POINT M18-4 conform to 14 CCR 923.4(n)? Please address.
d) Under CLASS I WATERCOURSES WITH FISH HABITAT on page 18 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).
e) Under CLASS II WATERCOURSES on page 19 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).
f) MITIGATION POINT M7-1 is described on page 20. The plan prescribes the installation of an 18” DRC under the reconstructed road. The map on page 33.1 identifies the road as proposed. Please clarify.

17. Crossing points
a) Is the road associated with Crossing R1-1 proposed or existing? The plan refers to reconstruction [ref. CROSSING R1-1 on page 20 and the map on page 33.1], whereas the CEG’s report refers to proposed construction [ref. DESCRIPTION under R1 on page 261]. Please clarify.
b) CROSSING R3-1 is described on page 21 as a seasonal road requiring reconstruction. The road is shown on the map on page 33.1 as proposed. Please clarify.
c) Crossings S2-2 and S3-2 are described on page 21 as tractor road crossings on Class III watercourses. Based on the map on page 33.2 the watercourse associated with S2-2 appears to be a Class II. Please verify that the watercourse is a Class III, as described in the text.

18. The use of Landing L31 is described at the bottom of page 22. The plan states that, “The landing surface shall be treated with effective erosion control measures upon completion of operations, prior to the winter period.” For LTO clarity, evaluation and compliance purposes please specify the effective erosion control measures. This can be done by referencing Item 18 or providing site specific controls.

19. MITIGATION POINT M9-6 is described on page 23 as a skid trail in the WLPZ of a Class II watercourse. The map on page 33.8 shows a seasonal truck road associated with the map point. Is there a skid trail covered by the mitigation point symbol, or is the truck being used only as a skid trail? Please clarify.

20. As the RPF of record for this NTMP you have requested that the Department include a Review Team Question (RTQ) concerning Item 30 on page 24. In the 1st paragraph under Item 30 the plan states that, “The LTO is responsible for lopping and distributing logging slash in designated areas so that no part of it generally remains more than 30 inches above the ground.” You indicated that reference to 30 inches was incorrect and that the intended height was 18 inches. Please revise.

21. Under “INNER GORGE” CLASS II WATERCOURSES on page 19 the plan states that, “Seven Class II watercourses on the project area are deeply incised and exhibit inner gorge characteristics….” Under DESCRIPTION in the CEG’s report for G4 (page 258) reference is made to six Class II watercourses. Please clarify.

22. A diagram is included on page 33.23. It appears to be related to Mitigation Point G11-1. Please label the diagram so it is clearly related to the specific mitigation point.

23. Under Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) on page 26 the plan states that, “Three osprey nest sites have been documented on the NTMP area.” This same statement is also provided under Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) on page 58. The expectation is that three nest sites have been documented within the boundaries of the proposed NTMP. Since there are two nest sites within, and one nest within close proximity, please revise accordingly. As written it appears that either one of the nest sites is incorrectly mapped, or that one nest site was accidentally omitted from the map [ref. map on page 33.17 and E. Significant Wildlife Areas on page 137].

24. The following questions pertain to the NTMP maps:
A. Please provide a map, or series of maps, that clearly identify public versus private roads [ref. 14 CCR 1090.5(w)(4)]. Including the location of locked gates would be helpful.
B. The plan boundary and management units are difficult to locate in some areas, particularly where they are associated with a road or watercourse. Please use a symbol that clearly shows the plan boundary and management units [ref. 14 CCR 1090.5(w)(1)].

25. Under Unit #8 (Helicopter Yarding with Cable Option; 244 acres) on page 37 the 1st sentence refers to Unit #7. Please revise, verifying that the information provided is applicable to Unit #8.

26. Under Briggs Creek Unit (Cable, Tractor/Cable Option; 38 acres) on page 37 the plan discusses two unstable areas. The first unstable area is described as being within the western portion of the Unit on the north side of Briggs Creek. The second unstable area is described as being in the southern portion of the Unit under Thompson Road. The unstable area north of Briggs Creek is clearly shown on the map on page 33.16. The location of the other unstable area is not clear. Please clearly show the location of this feature on the map [ref. 14 CCR 1090.5(w)(10)].

27. In the 2nd paragraph on page 46 the plan states that the CEG will oversee tractor operations on unstable areas and slides. Please verify that this provision is included in Section II so the LTO knows not to commence operations without the CEG present. If this provision has been included, please refer the reviewer to its location. (See also the 4th paragraph under Justification on page 47 for the (possible) need to make a similar revision.)

28. About half way through Explanation on page 46 the plan states that, “Following operations, or prior to the winter period, the trail shall be waterbarred to the specification for high EHR….” Under MITIGATION POINT M5-1, M8-1, M11-1, M12-1 on page 11 the plan states that, “Following operations, or prior to the winter period, the trail shall be waterbarred to the specification for extreme EHR….” Please clarify the EHR related to waterbar spacing. (See also under Justification for the (possible) need to make a similar revision.)

29. In the last paragraph on page 48 the plan states that, “The road construction in the WLPZ will maintain at least 20 feet of undisturbed vegetated filter strip between the outside edge of the road and the watercourse and/or pond.” Under ITEM #27 (a, f): ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN THE WLPZ on page 22 the plan discusses vegetation retention between the road and the watercourse, but does not provide a specific distance. It appears that the 20-foot retention provision included on page 48 should also be included in Section II so the LTO can comply with 14 CCR 1090.12(d).

30. At the top of page 50 the plan states that, “Following operations, or prior to the winter period, the skid trail shall be waterbarred to the specification for high EHR….” In the discussion of Mitigation Points M10-2, M9-6 and M25-6 on page 23 there is no reference to waterbars at the high EHR specifications. While the 50-foot spacing requirement appears to equal and/or surpass the high EHR specifications, for plan clarity, please have the discussions in Section II and III consistent.

31. In the text under Table S9: Present Volume per Acre on page 67 the plan states that, “Some variation between the “present volume” above and the “present volume” used in Table S12 in this Sustainability Analysis can be found.” Table S12 does provide present volume per acre, however it is by management unit as opposed to vegetation type. Table S13 provides present volume per acre by vegetation type, and values in Table S13 do somewhat differ from the values in Table S9. Was reference to Table S12 on page 67 correct? Please review and revise as necessary.

32. In the 1st paragraph under B. Silvicultural Prescriptions for Harvesting on page 72 the plan states that, “For the purposes of maintaining compliance with stocking requirements…either 75 square feet per acre of conifer basal area, or 450 countable conifer trees (using point count) per acre shall remain following harvest.” This is inconsistent with Item 14b on page 5, which specifies 75ft2 only. For plan consistency, please review and revise as necessary.

33. The following questions pertain to 2. Public or Private Purchase of the Timber/Timberland or Purchase of the Timber/Timberland as a Conservation Easement Alternative on page 87:
A. The 2nd paragraph appears to be incomplete. For plan clarity, please review the last sentence and revise as necessary.
B. Please carefully review the 5th paragraph. Verify that all sentences are complete and the time period specified is correct. Revise if necessary.

34. Please verify that water, not timber, is the high quality product associated with the NTMP [ref. last sentence under 6. Alternative Land Uses on page 90]. Producing high quality water can be a primary objective of the Timberland Owner without an NTMP.

35. Please review the 2nd sentence in the 3rd paragraph under Lyndon Canyon Planning Watershed (CALWATER V2.2 2205.400202) on page 98. The sentence is confusing.

36. In the text immediately above the 1st photograph on page 101 the plan states that, “All recommendations of the project Certified Engineering Geologist have been incorporated into NTMP Section II for clarity.” For consistency, please verify that recommendations 1 and 2 under Other on page 265 have been clearly provided in Section II.

37. Under 4., Noise, on page 104 the plan refers to bi-annual harvesting operations. Is this consistent with the approximate 15-year re-entry period described under A. Projected Frequencies of Harvest on page 72 and the re-inventory requirements described on page 75 [ref. Re-Inventory of the Timber Stand]? Please clarify.

38. Please review the last sentence in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs on page 108 for consistency with the same information included on page 91. Revise as necessary.

39. In the 2nd paragraph on page 115 the plan states that, “The project boundaries also encompass multiple class II ponds and wet areas.” No wet areas were described in Item 26, Section II or shown on the Operations Maps. Please clarify.

40. Under Debris Clearing at the top of page 117 the plan states that, “No naturally occurring debris will be removed from the stream channel as part of NTMP operations.” Under 13. Extraction of large organic debris from streams or lakes as a result of the project on page 121 the plan discusses the prohibition of the removal of large woody debris in quantities that may cause harm to beneficial uses of water. If no naturally occurring debris is to be removed from Class II and Class III stream channels, the retention requirement needs to be included in Section II. Currently, large woody debris retention is discussed in Section II in relation to Class I watercourses only.

41. Under 7. Sheet, rill, or gully erosion from harvesting or site preparation that could enter the stream system on page 120 the plan refers to the waterbarring of skid trails to the High EHR specification. Please clarify where this applies, as the implication is that it pertains to all skid trails.

42. Under 3. The combined loss of soil productivity… on page 125 please address growing space loss due to the proposed construction of numerous landings and several segments of seasonal road.

43. Under Fish on page 127 please review the sentence starting with, “Fish species including land-locked trout….” It does not appear to be complete? Revise if necessary.

44. In the 3rd paragraph on page 136 the plan states that, “Mitigation points such as widening of a switchback on Wright’s Station Road and the backfilling of gully erosion on a seasonal road within Unit #2…all facilitate fire suppression activities into the future.” In the 2nd paragraph on the bottom half of page 123 the plan indicates that the gully/seasonal road location is in Unit #1. For plan consistency, please review and revise as necessary.

45. Under 2. Nutrients on page 136 please review the sentence that starts with, “No harvesting of trees along the watercourse transition lines….” Revise for clarity.

46. Under B. 1. on page 140 the plan states that, “Parcels included in the assessment area are private ownerships with no legal public recreational opportunities.” Is this statement consistent with the end of the 1st paragraph on page 140? Please clarify.

47. Please review the last paragraph under C. Change in Visual Resources on page 142 with the last paragraph under B. Visual Resources Inventory on page 141. Revise if necessary.

48. In the last paragraph on page 144 the plan limits entry into Unit #6 and for other purposes of heavy equipment movement until the bridge upgrades are complete. Please verify that all restrictions are clearly addressed in Section II, not just entry into Unit #6.

49. Please verify that the lopping standard discussed under 16. Will the project increase fire hazard significantly on page 152 is consistent with that prescribed under Item 30 on page 24. Revise if necessary.

50. Rock is proposed for use throughout the NTMP area. Please address the source of the rock, and if from the Timberland Owner’s property, the need for a SMARA permit.

51. Please review page 326. The Plan Submitter has retained the services of an RPF, while at the same time the Timberland Owner has authorized the Plan Submitter to act on behalf of an RPF. Revise as necessary.

52. When submitting your responses to the RTQs, please provide $5 for the Rules. Since the plan may not be approved until 2006, submitting the 2005 Rules may not be appropriate.

53. Please make sure that all page numbers are located high enough on the page so they are clearly legible when the plan is copied.

54. Please make the following minor revisions:
A. Fomes to Phellinus under Wildlife Tree Retention – specifically 4. – toward the top of page 6.
B. Under MITIGATION POINT M24-2 on page 16 the plan states that, “See also M2-2 under Item 24 in NTMP Sections II and III.” Do you mean Item 27? Please review and revise as necessary.
C. Please provide the unit of measure associated with 30 under MITIGATION POINT M20-5 on page 17.
D. The last sentence on page 23 states that, “Further explanation and justification of this alternative practice is provided in Section V.” Do you mean Section III? Please review and revise accordingly.
E. Under Item 33 at the bottom of page 28 please revise Stand Description to Stand Conditions to be consistent with the text [ref. pages 41 – 43].
F. Please review the 1st sentence on page 115. Please revise as necessary [ref. miles versus feet].

RPF Archaeology Questions to be addressed prior to the PHI. For confidentiality, please submit responses and replacement/additional pages clipped or stapled separately. A single envelope is acceptable.

55. Under Native American Consultation Information (pg. 383):
A. Add the date that the second Native American notification letters were sent.
B. During the telephone conversation with Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, did she have any concerns about the plan or provide information about the plan area? If so, include a summary of the conversation.
C. Did the RPF receive a written response from Ann Marie Sayers? Any written responses shall be attached to the CAA. (ARCH)

56. Under Survey Results (pp. 388-390), was there any evidence of the historic buildings shown on the map from the New Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California (Thompson & West 1876) or the two historic roads (General Land Office 1866 & 1868) within the site survey areas? These historic resources were identified within the NTMP boundaries in the records check on pp. 343-347. If so, provide descriptions of the resources, significance assessments, and protection measures (if needed). (ARCH)

57. Under Protection Measures (pp. 392-393), clearly describe the specific enforceable protection measures to be implemented within 100 feet of the fifteen historic resources. (ARCH)

58. On the Archaeological Survey Coverage Maps (pp. 396 & 397), plot the locations of the Williams Dam, the Rattlesnake Wall, and the Homestead Cabin. (ARCH)

59. On the Primary Record forms (pp. 398-450):
A. P11, cite the author and year of the CAA;
B. On the Site Location Maps, provide the publication date(s) of the USGS
quadrangles. All Site Location Maps should include a north arrow. Outline the
boundaries of the resources with a solid black line (instead of a line with cross-
hatches in it). The locations of linear resources (such as the fences and the
railroad grade) should be plotted as black lines. Very small resources can be
depicted with a black dot.
C. The Site Sketch Maps must include site datum points. The datum should be a
relatively permanent natural or cultural feature. A description of the datum shall
be included either in the map legend or in the Archaeological Site Record form;
D. P2c (Southern Pacific Coast Railroad Grade, pg. 442), the Legal Description
should be to the nearest quarter quarter Section whenever possible. For example:
the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 9, the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 9, the SE
¼ of Section 9, etc.;
E. P4 (Gulch Site, pg. 449), should be ‘Site’ instead of ‘Structure’. (ARCH)

60. If it is located on San Jose Water Company landholdings, the Rattlesnake Wall should be recorded on a primary record form. (ARCH)

Agency Questions:

61. Please verify that the buffer zones along Wright’s Station Road and Morrill Road have been marked for the PHI [ref. County Roads at the bottom of page 5].

62. Please verify that Map Points M5-1, M8-1, M11-1, M12-1 and M6-2 have been flagged for the PHI [ref. ITEM # 21 (c): SKID TRAIL ON SLOPES OVER 50% WITH HIGH EHR on page 11].

63. Are full winter period operations, especially ground-based yarding, appropriate? To avoid multiple “spring flushes” should tractor yarding be terminated after a prescribed amount of precipitation has fallen? Please evaluate.

64. Proposed landings L41 and L42 are not to exceed ¼-acre. Given that these landings service helicopter operations, can a landing less than ¼-acre accommodate the anticipated activities? Please evaluate.

65. Please evaluate proposed road construction within the WLPZ of Los Gatos Creek at Mitigation Point M24-2 [ref. page 16].

66. Given that the Plan Submitter/Timberland Owner is in the business of water collection, distribution and supply, have Class I watercourses (both fish-bearing and domestic supplies) been provided adequate protection? Please evaluate.

67. Cross-stream felling of Class II watercourses is proposed throughout the plan area where such felling will improve safety or better protect residual vegetation and the beneficial uses of water [ref. 4. on page 19]. Is this a reasonable proposal, and who shall determine where and when it is appropriate? Please evaluate.

68. Springs are discussed on page 20. Are the protection measures prescribed adequate? Please evaluate.

69. Should the sag pond described by N9 in the CEG’s Report on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please evaluate.

70. Please note that the RPF believes that some tanoak mortality within the plan area is a result of Sudden Oak Death [ref. 2nd paragraph on page 43].

71. Please review the descriptions of the five haul routes described on pages 143 and 144. Are they accurate?

72. It is appropriate to exclude Columbus Day as a nationally designated legal holiday [ref. LOG HAULING on page 31]? Please evaluate.

73. Please verify that the Scenic Roads Maps [ref. pages 234 – 243] identify all the necessary roads.

74. Do any of the roads on the Scenic Roads Maps meet the definition of a Special Treatment Area per 14 CCR 895.1? Please evaluate.

75. Please note that in a letter from the Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company dated September 7, 2005, the water company requested that it be allowed to participate in the PHI and review of the NTMP [ref. page 329]. A similar request was made by the Aldercroft Heights County Water District [ref. page 327].

76. Several of the factor rating areas on the EHR worksheets on pages 210 and 211 have a rating of 1 for III. PROTECTIVE VEGETATIVE COVER REMAINING AFTER DISTURBANCE. Is this a reasonable rating, especially considering that canopy retention is estimated to be between 40% and 60% [ref. top of page 124]?

77. For CGS: MITIGATION POINT G5-6 is described on page 11. The plan states that, “There are no trees on the slide scar at this time. No harvesting will occur on this slide for the first entry.” The CEG’s report recommends no treatment since no harvesting is proposed. Should an enforceable statement be included in the plan that requires a geologic review prior to harvesting trees from the slide in the future?

Agency Archaeology Questions. For confidentiality, please submit responses clipped or stapled separately.

78. Evaluate the locations, significance assessment, and protection measures for the fifteen historic sites. (ARCH)

79. Spot check the high probability areas for archaeological resources, such as the ridge top, ridge spurs, midslope terraces and flats near Los Gatos Creek and other water sources. (ARCH)

7 ½” QUADRANGLE: Castle Rock Ridge, Laurel & Los Gatos

PAST OVERLAPPING PLANS: **
CDF Representative: Jay Gayner
CGS Representative: Michael Huyette
ARCH Representative: Chuck Whatford/Lisa Hagel
WQ Representative: Richard McMurtry
DFG Representative: Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald
NOAA Fisheries Representative: ***

***PLEASE NOTE: For many of the THP’s and NTMP’s being submitted, CDF is receiving notification from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA—Fisheries), that NOAA-Fisheries will not be able to review and provide comment to the specific plan. The notification reminds CDF, the plan submitter, and the timberland owner that they “…bear full responsibility of ensuring that their activities do not result in “take” of listed salmonids, and that this THP (or NTMP) is approved and implemented in compliance with the ESA and other applicable laws. Absent an ESA section 4(d) limitation on the prohibitions dealing with forestry activities in California, or an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit (Habitat Conservation Plan), incidental take of listed salmonids is not authorized.”

CDF will retain the notification in the administrative file for the plan, but will not be distributing copies. If you would like a copy of the letter for a specific plan, please make your inquiry by requesting a copy of the NOAA Fisheries Letter for the specific plan you are interested in, and send your requests to:

CDF Forest Practice
135 Ridgway Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

News indicates that the SJWC Board has approved to transfer its stock listing from the American Stock Exchange to the New York Stock Exchange effective 11/14/05.
_________________________
Form 8-K for SJW CORP

31-Oct-2005
Notice of Delisting or Transfer, Regulation FD Disclosure, Financial Statements and Exhibit.

Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.
(d) On October 27, 2005, the Board of Directors of SJW Corp. (the "Company") approved the transfer of the listing of the Company's common stock to the New York Stock Exchange from the American Stock Exchange.

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.
The Company anticipates that its common stock will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on November 14, 2005. The Company's shares will continue to trade on the American Stock Exchange under the symbol "SJW" until its common stock has been accepted for listing on the New York Stock Exchange and its shares begin trading on such exchange. A copy of the press release issued by the Company is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

This Item 7.01 and the exhibit to this report contain forward- looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Specifically, these forward-looking statements relate to the timing of listing and trading on the New York Stock Exchange and whether such listing and trading will occur at all. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties and there is no assurance that the listing and trading will be accomplished as anticipated.

A link to land sale activity/pending.

http://www.cbre.com/USA/US/CA/San+Jose/Property/sjw.htm?pageid=1

As noted in an earlier company press release, they are selling property with approvals for high rise residential/retail. While adjacent to the historical corporate buidling, it does not include the building. Here is the link to the property for sale that was included in the press release.

See more on YahooFinance: SJWC headlines.