Letter from Phillip Blake to the Napa County Planning Commission

August 29, 2002

David Graves , Chairman, Napa County Planning Commission
1195 Third St.
Napa, CA 94559

Re: Napa County Code- Revision of Stream Setbacks and Related Provisions of the Napa County Conservation Regulations Ordinance

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to provide my comments, and hopefully, some helpful guidance as you commence hearings for proposed revisions of the Napa County Conservation Regulations Ordinance. I have enjoyed the honor of having served the past several years as a technical advisor to Napa River Watershed Task force, and most recently as an advisor to the task force oversight committee. In my 20 years in Napa County with the SCS and NRCS, I have spent literally thousands of hours walking the lands of the Napa River Watershed as an advisor to the hundreds of landowners, private consultants, and agency partners who request NRCS consultation on restoring and sustaining our natural resources. In 1990-91, I assisted with drafting of the original conservation regulations, and had the pleasure of working with the commission and supervisors on what became a very effective program.

Over the past several years, I have experienced the frustration of having to defend the unique conservation efforts and accomplishments of a rural county that stands head and shoulders with any county in this nation, in its determination to restore and sustain the beauty and vitality of its lands and waters. Three years ago, the county invited a diverse group of interests to the table to revisit the landmark 1991 Napa County Conservation Regulations. The resulting debate has demonstrated that there is agreement between all parties on the need to better manage our watershed. Unfortunately, it has also exposed the polarization between those who seek to bring about change by informed discussion, and those who prefer to pursue litigious intimidation. I am hopeful that with further discussion and understanding of the issues that we can reach agreement on reasonable county conservation policy, and in that, I respect the challenges the commission has before it.

Many of the conservation issues we are dealing with on the Napa River have occurred over decades of time, and the kinds of restorative measures we have envisioned will take time to institute. As we go forward to write more effective county conservation policy, I also hope that we do not lose sight of the critical role that voluntary land stewardship plays in healing our watershed. Some amount of regulation serves as a reminder of our responsibility to sustain the environment, while onerous regulation extinguishes incentives for property owners to restore the land. Land stewardship groups are continuing to form in many areas of the county, and the results have been impressive. Even amidst this rancorous debate, these diverse groups of homeowners and farmers are working together, and quietly moving ahead with enlightened plans to restore their creeks and re-examine their management of the land. I don't see the litigious-seeking factions in attendance at these meetings, and that is a shame.

I would like to preface the following comments by saying that I respect the task force and oversight committee process, and in no way wish to suggest that it has not given all of us, committee members and advisors alike, an opportunity to express our views and recommendations. The planning department staff as well as J&S have worked very hard to capture what they judge to be reasonable policy statements. My concerns rest primarily with the direction the proposed ordinance revisions are moving. There are several issues that concern me, but I would like to primarily focus for now on the issue of stream setbacks.

Throughout the task force process, a good deal of time has been spent examining streams and what kind of buffers should be placed between the streambank and uses of the land. After considerable discussion, the task force adopted a Cal. Dept. of Forestry definition of streams. In recent weeks, the oversight committee has been given guidance from Steven Rae on these stream determinations, and have found that this recent information sheds a different light on how some of these streams, ( specifically class II and III) may be classified. Given the significant difference between the proposed setbacks of II and III, those of us who participated in the task force process now have a different picture of how adjacent lands would be buffered. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Rae, and don't doubt his abilities to weigh in on this issue with his expertise. I do, however believe that we need to re-examine setbacks specifically and develop a process that more accurately defines the setback need based on good science, and the specific stream setting of the site. Regardless of how these streams are classified, the fact remains that a 10 foot wide stream in the hills, with little to no floodplain will not require the same buffer as a lowland valley-form stream with a broad, meandering floodplain. Clearly, there needs to be some accommodation for a rational, scientific approach to laying out stream and habitat protections.

Section 18.108.040 B. of the revised regulations to date lays out a process for appeals to the commission for requested deviations to the standard 150 setback. It allows for consideration of narrower setbacks to 50 feet, (100 feet minimum south of Zinfandel Lane). Putting it very succinctly, most of the documentation requirements noted, ( items b., d., f., g., and j. in particular) involve highly technical evaluations that would in many cases be a very subjective analysis process at best. We do a great disservice to the applicant when such excruciating details as these are required with no predictable outcome. This type of analysis also leaves the county open to the same kind of challenges that have become common to the conservation regulations process.

I am submitting, for your review an example of a conservation standard that could serve as the basis for more rational, science-based approach to determining setback distances. Titled, "Riparian Forest Buffer 391A", it serves as a recently revised conservation practice standard in the Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide. In purpose, it is aimed at providing necessary shade and habitat to aquatic areas, to provide a source of detritus and large woody debris to the stream system, and provide reduction of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to the aquatic environment. The standard is geared to agricultural land settings, and also provides some introductory guidance on plant composition of setback areas. Briefly summarized, it identifies the critical active floodplain bounds of the stream, and insures that adequate shading, habitat, and woody material are available to maintain stream health.

I am suggesting that the commission and oversight committee examine its merits as a straightforward tool to guide setback determinations. With some minor tweaking, it would be very useful for our local conditions. It has utility for both valley and hillside stream settings, but I feel it would be particularly valuable for Class I and II streams in hillside lands of 5% slope and greater. With this standard, we are able to provide a rational, relatively quick analysis of setback needs, and also evaluate any additional vegetative improvements needed in the buffer area. Because we have been able to successfully integrate the use of native plant materials in our county agricultural systems, we would also want to pay special attention to amending the standard appropriately to eliminate or reduce the use of non-native species in the buffer zone.

In closing I want to again emphasize that our county regulations not be viewed as an end-all toward achieving watershed protection goals. We must allow for reasonable use of the land, while retaining incentives for landowners to participate in its restoration. In the past several weeks, NRCS has been contacted by 2 landowners who are considering abandonment of their planned, permitted stream restoration projects. Because of the potential for widening their required setbacks, they have expressed reticence to invest in restoration of fisheries habitat and fish passage. We have many more projects out there that rest in the balance. If we leave landowners with the impression that streams are features that preclude reasonable use of the land, we will have lost the important psychological connection between private property and our responsibility to nature.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Phillip Blake

District Conservationist

ATTACH: 1 - NRCS Riparian Buffer Conservation Practice Standard

Cc: Napa River Watershed Task Force Oversight Committee