July 28, 2003
Mr. George Gentry
Board of Forestry
P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2466
RE: Napa County Proposed Local Forest Practice Rules
Dear Mr. Gentry & Board of Forestry,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide reasons why I believe the Board of Forestry should deny, in toto, Napa County's request for Local Forest Practice Rules. Please take the necessary and appropriate time to thoroughly review any and all of the material presented by Napa County, others and myself. I urge the Board to hold Napa County to the highest standards for proving its contention that the State Forest Practice Rules are inadequate, such that Napa County must be treated uniquely with special rules. Has Napa County proven that our soils, geography, topography, rainfall, hydrology along with our plant and animal species are substantially different from Sonoma, Lake, Mendocino or Humboldt Counties requiring special protection?
Additionally, I deny and refute Napa County's assertion of urgency. I have provided a schedule of Timber Harvest Permits (exhibit 1) for the last twelve years and as you can see from the numbers, no urgency exists. I provided the Napa County Supervisors with this same schedule during their June hearings on this subject.
By way of introduction in 1971 I founded Smith-Madrone Vineyards, which is a mountain vineyard and winery. During these past 32 years I have received three permits from CDF the last of which is an NTMP for the non-vineyard portion of the property. I have been a Director of both the Napa Valley Vintners Association and the Napa County Farm Bureau. In 1986 I was the Chairman of the Napa Valley Wine Auction. In 1998 I was a founding member of Farmers For Napa Valley and was appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors to be one of 15 members of the Napa River Watershed Task Force which met for nearly two years in an effort to reach consensus on managing Napa's watersheds. Additional information on my winery and myself can be found at smithmadrone.com.
As Scoutmaster of St. Helena's Boy Scout Troop 1 I will be on a Scout trip when your committee meets on August 5th to discus this matter. With limited time available before leaving, please accept these generalized comments and if time allows, I would like to comment on the specific rules at a later date.
I wish to point out that Napa County's initial presentation to you, resolution No. 03-106, authorizing and rationalizing their proposal is flawed. They state in the second paragraph:
"Whereas, as agricultural operations and residences continue to expand into the County's forest lands, the impacts associated with forestry operations and timberland conversion are having a greater and greater influence on the quality of life that make Napa County unique; ."
Napa County's General Plan clearly states that agriculture is the highest and best use of the land and timber is, as we all know, agriculture. Additionally, Napa Valley exists today as a unique agricultural area only because winegrapes can compete economically with housing. The quality of life that is talked about here is, in fact, the wine industry. Let me direct your attention to a July 22, 2003 property tax statement envelope that I just received. On the back of every tax envelope sent out by Napa County's Treasurer-Tax collector is the following statement in part: (exhibit 2)
"To protect the agricultural and open space lands that presently exist in Napa County, the Napa County Board of Supervisors has determined that the highest and best use for agricultural/open space land is to develop or preserve said land for the purpose of agricultural operations and the Board will not consider the inconveniences or discomforts arising from agricultural operations to be a nuisance if such operations are legal, consistent with locally accepted customs and standards and operated in a non-negligent manner.
"Thus, if you live near agricultural lands in Napa County, you must be prepared to accept those inconveniences or discomforts that are caused by agricultural operations . The Board of Supervisors hopes that you will agree that such minimal inconveniences or discomfort is a small price to pay for the lifestyle we all enjoy."
Napa County officials can't have it both ways. Their resolution 03-106 contradicts this statement and their General Plan by suggesting that agriculture in the form of forestry is becoming, in essence, a nuisance to the Napa lifestyle, which is, after all, based on agriculture. I'm sure Joseph Heller would appreciate this Catch 22.
Page 1-1, Section 1. Introduction, Objectives and General Justification:
". Timberland conversions are causing greater and greater controversy in the community. Over a year ago the Board of Supervisors began discussions of this matter when they directed staff to explore adoption of local timber harvest rules as one way to control timberland conversions. While staff found that this was not possible, the adoption of local timber harvest rules would permit a limited improvement of the current situation."
Herein lies the heart of their whole proposal. With this statement, the Supervisors clearly acknowledge that their goal of controlling conversions is futile. However, they are willing to console themselves by requesting the Board of Forestry adopt their proposed Local Rules, which they didn't really want in the first place. Unfortunately, the Napa County Supervisors don't have the courage of the convictions (and the General Plan) stated on those tax envelopes. They are, in fact, bending to the pressures of anti-agricultural activists complaining about the "inconveniences or discomforts" associated with Napa County agriculture, specifically developing vineyards on mountain slopes. In my opinion, the Supervisors hope to pass-the-buck on to the Board of Forestry.
I find it both interesting and disturbing that under "Cited and Supporting References 2-2" there is no mention of the Napa River Watershed Task Force Final Report (exhibit 3). On December 1, 1998 the Napa County Board of Supervisors appointed 15 Task Force members from the public along with one Supervisor and one Planning Commissioner. We met for almost two years with "The charge . to discuss and try to reach consensus on land use practices involving hillside development issues and their effects on the natural environment." The final report was issued in September 2000 and is over 200 pages. The Watershed Task Force has a high profile within the community. During this lengthy period there were many front-page articles in the local newspapers on the progress of the Watershed Task Force, which in turn, generated many editorials.
Page 54 of the Watershed Task Force Final Report:
"Task Force Recommendation
Timber Harvest Permits: No additional Conservation Regulation changes are recommended to address THPs. The Task Force recommends continued exemption of THPs from County Conservation Regulations, since these projects are preempted by State regulation, are subject to State standards governing tree retention and erosion control, and are environmentally assessed at the state level."
The recommendation speaks for itself and undermines the County's credibility for representing the wishes of Napa County citizens.
Page 1-1, Conditions Unique to Napa County that Provide Justification for the Proposed Rules:
Page 1-2, Objective 1: Protection of Napa County's Public Drinking Water Supply Facilities:
The three pages that fall under these headings simply outline the current state of the County's soils, topography, rainfall, vegetation etc. There is not one sentence that describes or outlines to the reader why any of these natural features are unique to Napa County. The County has not provided a scintilla of evidence that any of the delineated natural features are unique to Napa County. If the County had evidence that these natural features were unique to Napa County, that evidence should be provided in this section. The County has failed to provide evidence supporting its claim of uniqueness: conclusion - there is none.
Specifically, Napa County has failed to delineate how a municipal reservoir in Napa County differs from a municipal reservoir in Sonoma, Lake or even Mendocino Counties Furthermore, Napa County has failed to demonstrate why those non-existent differences require special rules for protection.
Page 1-5, Objective 2: Protection of Napa County's Scenic Resources:
Clever obfuscation is how to best describe this short section of rationalization. Tourists with money come to the Napa Valley for the vineyards and the wines. If the vineyards and wineries weren't in Napa Valley then the hotels, restaurants, spas and shops wouldn't be here either. The wealthy tourists that the County seems so concerned about don't come to visit the trees in Bothe Napa Valley State Park or to hike to the top of Robert Louis Stevenson State Park. The natural features of Napa Valley will not support $1,000 a night stays at Auberge de Soleil or $250 dinners at the French Laundry.
And where are the hottest wineries that the tourists are seeking today? They're the vineyards and wineries located on the steep mountain soils because that's where the best wines are coming from. (Exhibit 4)
The County is also making the argument that scenic roads must be protected. Napa County already has 24 roads so designated. At the Public Hearing the Supervisors made it clear that there wasn't time to add the additional roads they wish to designate as "scenic" before their formal submission to your Board of the proposed Local Rules. It appears that virtually every road in Napa County will soon be designated as "scenic." I admit that the conversion from forest to vineyard is unattractive for a year or so, but once the land is planted to vines it becomes the visual enhancement that brings the tourists and their money to our Valley. (Exhibit5) And isn't the temporary unsightliness of the conversion exactly what the Supervisors admonished Napa citizens about being accepting of ". those inconveniences or discomforts . as a small price to pay for the lifestyle we all enjoy." It seems to me the Napa County Board of Supervisors should heed their own words.
Page 1-5, Objective 3. Provide Greater Operation Control over Timber Harvesting Activities That Have the Potential to Impact Public Health, Safety and Welfare:
I hope you find it as illuminating as I do, that the County's proposal never discusses the various zoning designations and how that zoning is defined. Additionally, there is no mention of Napa's General Plan and how these proposed rules are either "consistent" or "inconsistent" with the wishes of the County's citizens as expressed through our General Plan.
In 1968 Napa County led the country in historic preservation of agricultural land by passing the first ever "Ag Preserve." Contrary to the County's argument in this section, our General Plan does not recognize the "rural lifestyle" as the highest and best use of the land. The County's proposals would have us believe that the "rural lifestyle" has a higher priority than agriculture and therefore must be protected from the "nuisances" of agriculture. If the Supervisors want the "rural lifestyle" to have this elevated priority then they need to go through the public process to change the General Plan and re-define its zoning. You should be aware that Measure J prohibits the Board of Supervisors from making any changes to zoning. Changes in zoning definitions can only be made by a vote of the people!
Page 1-6, Objective 4. Increase County and Local Participation in Review of Timber Harvest Plans:
This is a red herring. Napa County officials have been invited to comment on all timber harvest applications and to attend all pre-harvest inspections. It is my understanding that Napa County rarely if ever attends these pre-harvest inspections.
Additionally, Napa County's feelings were hurt when CDF wouldn't support Napa County violating its own Conservation Ordinance that clearly stated anyone with a permit from CDF was exempt from complying with the ordinance. In 1991 Napa County passed the Conservation Ordinance that dealt with soil erosion on lands of 5% slope or greater. Among the list of exemptions were any holders of Timber Harvest permits, yet the County demanded those applicants to be processed through their Conservation Ordinance. Early last summer, Jayson Woodbridge prevailed with his lawsuit and forced the County to abide by its own Ordinance. Napa County has a history of ignoring the law with respect to environmental ordinances. In 1999 the Sierra Club sued Napa County and successfully demonstrated that Napa County failed to comply with CEQA when processing Erosion Control Plans. Currently the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance is suing the County for again ignoring CEQA during the recent passage of the Stream Setback Ordinance and that same ordinance is now subject to a referendum vote of the people. (Exhibits 6 & 7)
Page 1-6, Objective 5. Bring State Rules into Closer Conformance with Local Regulations Covering All Other Forms of Ground Disturbing Activities in Napa County:
I believe that the fairest thing that can be said for this section's rationalization is that the tail is trying to wag the dog. Napa County does not have the staff, the departments, the experience or the expertise to regulate and manage our forests for their long-term sustainable production as a natural recurring resource. Napa County is fraught with environmental politics which can and do lead to short-term expediencies sacrificing long-term beneficial public goals.
In my experience, it's not that Napa County forests are mis-managed, it's that most of the forests are not managed at all, in large part, because there are few economic incentives to do so. Over the past 12 years only 518.6 acres have been granted Timber Harvest Permits. The fuel loads in our forests are enormous and dangerous. It seems to me that the checker boarding of our mountain vineyards protects our forests from the potential destruction of a great conflagration. Acceptance of these rules will incrementally make it that much more difficult for timber owners to economically manage and care for their forests, which in turn exacerbates the fire danger.
I hope you agree that Napa County has failed to make a convincing case for requiring adoption of Local Timber Harvest Rules. I urge the Board of Forestry to place the long-term management and health of our forests above the short-term so-called phantom urgencies of Napa County politics and to deny all of Napa County's Proposed Local Forest Practice Rules.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Stuart Smith