Madrone members and other environmental advocates should seriously consider attending the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the proposed Vineyard Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. The Watershed Protection Alliance made up of Growers and Environmentalists worked for nine months to reach agreement on the language and intent of the Vineyard Ordinance, only to have the Sonoma County Council rewrite the document to ensure that it will be categorically exempt from CEQA review, and bomb-proof against legal action to protect the environment. The newest changes to the ordinance will be reviewed on Tues. You can get ahead start on the subject matter by reading County Counsel's Memorandum below, which was released on Friday. Many of the original WPA members are debating whether to ask the board of Supes not to adopt the ordinance in its newly gutted form, but to reconvene the original task force for a rewrite.Without a vineyard ordinance, there are no protections against habitat loss, or standards for erosion control when County land is converted to vineyards. But a weak ordinance with no discretionary authority vested in the Agricultural Commission, U.S. Fish and Game, or other agency is ineffectual, and will lead to more abuse. Please let your opinion be heard at this important hearing.

Joannie Dranginis, President

MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 8, 1999
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Office of the Sonoma County Counsel
RE: Vineyard Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance

At its meeting on November 2, 1999, the Board continued its consideration
of the proposed vineyard erosion and sediment control ordinance ("the
proposed ordinance") to December 14, 1999, at 3:30 p.m., so that this
office could address remaining concerns of the Board. Specifically, the
Board was concerned about three issues: (i) the absence of specific
best management practices utilizing fixed standards or objective
measurements for use in connection with the proposed ordinance, (ii) the
absence of specific methodologies for calculating pre-development
average slope for use in connection with the proposed ordinance, and
(iii) the requirement in the proposed ordinance that a person undertaking a
vineyard planting or replanting must obtain any approvals and permits
required by other agencies prior to notifying the agricultural commissioner
of the vineyard planting or replanting. Because of these concerns, the
Board directed this office to develop a set of best management practices
utilizing fixed standards or objective measurements and a set of
methodologies for calculating pre-development average slope so that the
Board could formally adopt them either as part of the proposed ordinance
or as accompanying standards. The Board also directed this office to
revise the proposed ordinance to remove the requirement that a person
undertaking a vineyard planting or replanting must obtain any approvals
and permits required by other agencies prior to notifying the agricultural
commissioner of the vineyard planting or replanting. However, for the
reasons discussed below, this office must respectfully request further
direction from the Board before developing the documents and making the
revisions to the proposed ordinance directed by the Board.

When this office began to investigate what would be required to carry
out the Board's direction to develop a set of best management practices
utilizing fixed standards or objective measurements, it became apparent
that it would be a long and difficult process and that it could not be done
without sacrificing the flexibility that would otherwise be present in the
practices. However, without such a set of best management practices, it
is not advisable for the agricultural commissioner to be given any
responsibility for technical review of erosion and sediment control plans
required by the proposed ordinance. To solve this problem, this office
recommends that the Board direct us to make the following revisions to
the proposed ordinance:

(a) Eliminate any technical review by the agricultural commissioner of
erosion and sediment control plans required by the proposed ordinance,
and, instead, require that the plans, depending upon the level of vineyard
planting or replanting, be either prepared by or reviewed and approved
by a county certified professional,1 as described below.

(b) Establish three levels of authorized vineyard replantings. The
three levels would be the same as for authorized vineyard plantings,
except that the third level would include vineyard replantings on existing
vineyard land having a pre-development average slope of more than
50%.

(c) Require prior notice to the agricultural commissioner for authorized
Level I vineyard plantings and authorized Level I and II vineyard
replantings. No erosion and sediment control plan would be required for
these vineyard plantings and replantings, but compliance with the
proposed ordinance's erosion and sediment control requirements would
be required. The agricultural commissioner's review of these vineyard
plantings and replantings would be limited to verifying the level of the
vineyard planting or replanting. Field inspections of these vineyard
plantings and replantings would be authorized, but not required.

(d) Require prior notice to the agricultural commissioner and an
erosion and sediment control plan for authorized Level II vineyard
plantings and authorized Level III vineyard replantings. The erosion and
sediment control plan could be prepared by any person, but would have
to be reviewed and approved by a county certified professional prior to
being submitted to the agricultural commissioner. The agricultural
commissioner's review of these vineyard plantings and replantings would
be limited to verifying the level of the vineyard planting or replanting
and confirming that the erosion and sediment control plan had been reviewed
and approved as required. Field inspections of these vineyard plantings
and replantings would be required.

(e) Require prior notice to the agricultural commissioner and an
erosion and sediment control plan for authorized Level III vineyard
plantings. The erosion and sediment control plan would have to be either
prepared by a county certified professional, or prepared by a qualified
professional and reviewed and approved by a county certified
professional prior to being submitted to the agricultural commissioner.
The agricultural commissioner's review of these vineyard plantings would
be limited to verifying the level of the vineyard planting and confirming
that the erosion and sediment control plan had been prepared or reviewed
and approved as required. Field inspections of these vineyard plantings
would be required.

(f) Require all authorized Level I vineyard plantings and all authorized
Level I, II, and III vineyard replantings to establish and maintain a
riparian setback for any designated stream on the vineyard site of either (i) 25
feet from the top of the bank, or, if applicable, (ii) the distance
specified in Section 26-66-030 of the Sonoma County Code, whichever is greater.
Require all authorized Level II and III vineyard plantings to establish and
maintain a riparian setback for any designated stream on the vineyard site
of either (i) 50 feet from the top of the bank, or, if applicable, (ii) the
distance specified in Section 26-66-030 of the Sonoma County Code,
whichever is greater.

(g) Establish a fixed standard or objective measurement (most likely a
formula or formulas) for the agricultural commissioner to use in
determining whether to adjust the deadlines for starting and ending site
preparation work and pre-planting and planting activities each year.

(h) Make any other changes necessary to ensure that all of the acts
and determinations of the agricultural commissioner under the proposed
ordinance are ministerial, and make any other necessary technical,
conforming, or cleanup changes.

For the Board's information, the requirements for authorized vineyard
plantings and replantings under the proposed ordinance, including the
revisions recommended above, are summarized in the table attached to
this memorandum.

If Board Members have any questions regarding any of the matters
discussed in this memorandum, please advise me.

C. David Hurst
Deputy County Counsel

Madrone Audubon voiced guarded approval for passage of the “Vineyard Ordinance”, also known as the “Vineyard Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance” at a hearing before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tues. October 12th. While the Ordinance will address the issues of erosion and slope stabilization for new vineyards, the Chapter feels it has not addressed the impacts of vineyard conversions on our native California plant communities, and the wildlife that depend on them. Ripping up the soil to a 3-4 foot depth and spraying chemicals on every square inch of ground kills off the mice, voles, ground squirrels which are the prey of hawks and owls. When the trees and shrubs are cut down, nesting sites of these raptors and other cavity nesting birds are destroyed.

Figures from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office indicate that the vineyard conversion rate throughout the County has, in the past five years, been about 2,000 acres per year. However, according to these same figures, we have noted that in the last 91/2 months, (since Dec. 1998), 6000 acres of land has been converted. This reflects the rush to beat the October 1st deadline, when interim regulations, called an Urgency Ordinance, for certain slope elevations, would take effect.

Madrone Audubon believes that the Vineyard Ordinance is a very small first step toward establishing a policy for how we value our native plant communities and wildlife habitat, as well as the rights of our constituents to enjoy and appreciate Sonoma County’s characteristic landscape. We should be integrating our work and our home life with neighborhood, and community. What we have instead is corp. industry growers and wealthy absentee owners ravaging the landscape right up to the neighbor’s back fence, with short notice, and no attempt at thoughtful consideration of their concerns. Madrone has been contacted by several people about vineyard conversions in their midst. Following this article is a letter we received from a Madrone member in Sebastopol.

Self interest dictates that those with access will take as much of our wildlands for economic gain as possible until it is all gone. We haven’t discovered a way out of our destructive mode of doing business. We need to protect habitat values, native plant communities through a thoughtfully integrated planning mechanism to bring the community into this process.

Mike Reilly, Sonoma County Supervisor, raised the question of why the CEQA process is not being considered for certain vineyard projects in Sonoma County. The California Environmental Quality Act is a State law requiring public notification and disclosure. This environmental review calls for accountability on the part of developers and government agencies, and is already being implemented for certain vineyard projects in the Napa County vineyard ordinance. Our Board of Supervisors has exempted CEQA from this new ordinance, and most of them seem very reluctant to visit that debate. Some environmentalists feel that vineyard conversions should be subject to the CEQA review process. It’s clear that with the level of adverse impacts which we are experiencing as a result of vineyard conversions, more effective guidelines are urgently needed to protect the environmental quality of this County.

Dear Madrone Audubon:

I am a local Madrone Audubon member with a pressing situation. An old apple orchard (12 acres) which adjoins my property is being ripped out as I type! On the property is a grove of second-growth redwoods surrounded by 100 year-old black oaks and live oaks. There is also a very old hedge-row (containing oaks, madrones, bays, and manzanita) which acts as a wildlife corridor connecting with a seasonal creek. I have lived next to the property for over 12 years and have observed and listed 60 bird species and numerous other forms of wildlife. The new owner of this property began bulldozing last Thursday, the 30th of September, purposely to avoid being held accountabe to the new county vineyard planting ordinance, which took effect October 1st. In three conversations with the new owner, I suggested that the secondary growth surrouding the redwoods be saved. He refused. ( He is not logging the redwoods "at this time"). I requested that the wildlife and riparian corridors be spared. He refused.

I requested that a row of apples be left intact as a buffer to neighboring property lines. Again, he refused. I am helpless. And I am painfully saddened by the events of the last few days. The neighbors only found out about the purchase of this land 5 days before the bulldozers arrived. On Sunday, (yesterday) the dozers were in destroying the oaks. It was horrifying to watch. The flickers return every fall to overwinter in the orchard. I heard their calls the morning the first bulldozers arrived. It was heart-wrenching. I attempt to control my emotions, but nature is a passion. I find it difficult to stand by quietly and watch its destruction. I am a former Sonoma County park ranger and elementary school teacher. My classes were all active in Audubon Adventures. We took trips each year to Bouverie and ACR among other nature-related field adventures. Now my own backyard is turning into what one article in Audubon Magazine called a "wildlife wasteland": a vineyard. I want my experiences publicized. I wish help from the Audubon Society so that we can protect our native trees and our wildlife. Vineyards are fine if planted in a way that can be harmonious with nature. The old orchard next to my house was a virtual wildlife sanctuary. Cavity nests were numberous, fox dens were not uncommon, wood rat nests were in evidence and the orchard served as a hunting ground for birds of prey. All this is ending. It saddens my heart.

Thank you for your time. Lorie Silver

Dear Friends,

If you are interested in learning more about the future of vineyard development in Sonoma County, and how the risk of habitat loss and fragmentation can effect this future development, plan to attend a meeting at the Board of Supervisor’s Chambers on Nov. 2nd at 6:30pm. The Supervisors will be reviewing a report prepared by UC Berkeley, described as “A spatially explicit vineyard expansion model: addressing crop production, public policy, and environmental concerns.” Adina Merenlender of UC Berkeley, and the UC Hopland research Extension Center, has been investigating this issue and has prepared this final report as part of a Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program Grant. She will present the report using vineyard data compiled by Circuit Riders Productions, with GIS mapping techniques showing old and new vineyard development in Sonoma County.

This project was designed to provide an assessment of where vineyards have been planted, where suitable areas are for future planting, and address the natural resource and environmental policies that are associated with agricultural expansion in Sonoma County.

Thanks, Joannie Dranginis, President