31 July 2003
Mr. George Gentry
Board of Forestry
P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2466
Via Email
RE: Napa County Proposed Local Forest Practice Rules
Dear Mr. Gentry & Board of Forestry,
As president of the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance (NVLSA), I represent approximately 200 Napa County rural property owners dedicated to eliminating regulatory obstacles to good land stewardship. NVLSA recently sponsored a successful voter referendum against Napa County's Stream Setback Ordinance because that ordinance hampers and discourages good stewardship. We are concerned that the special timber rules being proposed by Napa County would impose similar obstacles if adopted by the State. We therefore ask that you not approve these special rules.
As we read them, these rules are a barely disguised effort to make the permit application process so onerous and Napa County timber harvests so complex and expensive that they will for all practical purposes be prohibited. We believe that the State Board of Forestry already does an excellent job of regulating timber harvests under its existing rules, and that additional rules are unnecessary and would be counterproductive.
Timber harvests in Napa County already seem rare. Contrary to the tone of the Napa County request, logging operations have not become a public nuisance in Napa County. In fact, few of us can even remember seeing a logging truck on Napa County Roads. However, a small but vocal minority in Napa County is taking the position that the only way to save the forest is to save every tree, and these special rules are apparently designed to placate that minority.
The more sensible citizens of Napa County understand that saving every tree can actually contribute to the total destruction of the forest by continuing to add to the already hazardous fuel load in our forests. Although the beneficial impacts of frequent fires on the health of the forest are now widely recognized, decades of successful wildfire suppression in Napa County have left us with an extremely hazardous situation in which an otherwise beneficial fire can burn hot enough to destroy mature, healthy trees. This puts the entire forest at risk, and establishing new rules designed to prohibit judicious clearing and thinning can only increase that risk.
It would be sadly ironic if the efforts of a misguided few to save every tree were to actually contribute to the destruction of our forest. Not only would it be irresponsible for the Board of Forestry to allow this to happen, but the BOF would surely be blamed. After all, if the adoption of these new rules were to be followed by a catastrophic fire, I doubt that Napa County would stand up and take responsibility for allowing the fuel to build up to dangerous levels. It is far more likely that the County would point to the BOF and say "They were in charge".
The State of California is charged with managing our forest resources precisely because local politics are too vulnerable and responsive to the emotional input of the uninformed, and California's forest resources are far too important to be left to the vagaries of that kind of local political wrangling.
Please keep in mind that the majority of informed Napa County Citizens are relying on the Board of Forestry to continue managing our forests objectively and efficiently, and to ensure their long term health and economic viability. We believe that approving these special rules would jeopardize your ability to continue meeting that responsibility. We urge you not to approve these special rules.
Sincerely,
George Bachich, president
Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance
P. O. Box 3238
Napa, CA94558