Friday, October 10, 2008                 Register

VinoCellar.com Wine Forums
Environmentalists Fight Vineyards' Spread (Sonoma Coast)
Last Post 02-08-2006 08:18 PM byDavid Niederauer. 21 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
AuthorMessages
Pool Boy 
Laurl, MD (DC suburb)
Master of Wine
Master of Wine
Posts: 13767

--
01-23-2006 09:30 PM  
Just saw this headline on Yahoo News.....



Environmentalists Fight Vineyards' Spread

By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press WriterSat Jan 21, 1:18 PM ET

In the fog-shrouded forests of California's remote North Coast, winemakers believe they've found the perfect terrain to grow the notoriously fickle pinot noir grape prized by connoisseurs.

Vineyard developers are snapping up thousands of acres of redwoods and firs in Sonoma County, with plans to clear the trees and plant the once-obscure varietal made famous by the wine-fueled road trip film "Sideways."

Environmentalists and residents in Annapolis, a tiny town about 140 miles north of San Francisco, are trying to rein in the pinot lovers. They're fighting the conversion of timberlands into vineyards, which they say destroys wildlife habitat, erodes the soil, contaminates the water with pesticides and opens the door to development.

"If you've seen the movie, you've seen the glassy-eyed stare they have when they talk about their plans to produce pinot noir up here," said resident Chris Poehlmann, who opposes vineyard conversions. "We feel it's much more important for future generations to have forests on these hills than wine grapes."

As demand for California wine grows, vintners are looking for new terrain beyond traditional wine-growing regions such as the Napa and Sonoma valleys, where available land is scarce and expensive.

Increasingly, developers are buying up land in remote, ecologically fragile areas such as northwest Sonoma County, where roads and electricity are available and land is relatively affordable. Many property owners here are eager to turn their forests into vineyards because wine grapes, especially for high-end pinot noir, are worth more than timber, which is increasingly expensive to harvest due to stringent regulations.

Alarmed by the trend, Sonoma County supervisors are set to consider new rules next month that would limit vineyard conversions on nearly 200,000 acres of forests.

"There are plenty of places to plant grapes in Sonoma County without cutting down redwood forests," said Supervisor Mike Reilly, who advocates more restrictions. "I think people have a special feeling for the redwood forests here and they don't want to see them taken away."

Sonoma is just one of several Northern California counties trying to balance the interests of the wine industry and the environment.

The latest battlefront is this sparsely populated region where a cool climate and sandy soil offer ideal conditions to grow the delicate, thin-skinned pinot noir grape.

"The vines are a bit stressed, so the fruit is more concentrated and produces more intense flavors," said Barbara Scalabrini, who with her husband opened the area's first winery — Annapolis Winery — about 20 years ago.

After vintners declared northwest Sonoma County the "new terroir" for pinot noir in the late 1990s, developers began buying up land and planting vines. Kendall Jackson was the first major wine company to develop vineyards in the area. About a dozen, mostly small, vineyards have opened since and more are in the works.

The early vineyards were planted on former apple orchards, but most of that land has already been replanted with grapes so landowners started applying to turn their woodlands into vineyards.

The most ambitious — and controversial — project is Preservation Ranch. Premium Pacific Vineyards purchased about 20,000 acres and wants to turn up to 2,000 acres into vineyards, mostly on hills and ridges. The Napa developer plans to use wine profits to restore forests on the remaining 18,000 acres.

"We believe this is going to be a model for how you can restore damaged, wounded lands," said Richard Wollack, co-chief executive of Premium Pacific Vineyards.

A group of Annapolis residents formed Friends of the Gualala River and teamed up with the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to protect the forests. They say there isn't enough water to support more vineyards, which pollute the river and soil and threaten salmon and other wildlife with runoff.

"We're not saying you shouldn't drink wine. We're saying there are more appropriate lands to grow wine grapes on," said Keith Kaulum, a local Sierra Club activist.

Currently, landowners who want to convert timberlands must apply for a permit from the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, a process that usually requires a rigorous series of environmental studies.

But environmentalists and local residents say permit standards are too lax. Last year, environmental groups sued the agency for approving plans without environmental review.

The proposed county ordinance would ban vineyards from displacing redwoods and Douglas firs that produce high-quality wood products. Land with other trees could be developed, but only if it benefits the public and the landowner plants two acres of high-quality timberland for every acre of grapes.

Supervisor Reilly said Sonoma County would become the first California county to regulate timberland conversions. Premium Pacific Vineyards has endorsed the proposed rules, but opponents say the rules don't go far enough.

"The county ordinance as it's written has been watered down to the point where it really doesn't protect forests," said John Holland, president of Friends of the Gualala River. "What's at stake is whether a redwood ecosystem that's taken thousands of years to develop will exist or be eliminated."

Some Sonoma County wine growers are worried that planting more pinot vineyards could result in a glut of high-end wines.

Nick Frey, who heads the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association, said 10,000 of the county's 60,000 acres of vineyards already grow pinot noir grapes ,and they face plenty of competition from Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. He said wines over $25 a bottle only make up 4 percent of the U.S. wine market, of which high-end pinot makes up only a tiny slice.

"We always have to remember that we're selling into a very small market," Frey said. "Pinot noir is really hot right now ... but that could change. You could be one crop away from having excessive supply."
www.roguefood.com -- www.cellartracker.com
AlexRed 
Northern VA
Wine Thief
Wine Thief
Posts: 2658

--
01-23-2006 10:09 PM  
Quote:


with plans to clear the trees and plant the once-obscure varietal made famous by the wine-fueled road trip film "Sideways."




"Once obscure varietal" my ass... maybe a few hundred years ago.

Quote:

Environmentalists and residents in Annapolis, a tiny town about 140 miles north of San Francisco, are trying to rein in the pinot lovers. They're fighting the conversion of timberlands into vineyards,....




Quote:

"There are plenty of places to plant grapes in Sonoma County without cutting down redwood forests," said Supervisor Mike Reilly, who advocates more restrictions. "I think people have a special feeling for the redwood forests here and they don't want to see them taken away."




"special feeling" huh?

Quote:

"We're not saying you shouldn't drink wine. We're saying there are more appropriate lands to grow wine grapes on," said Keith Kaulum, a local Sierra Club activist.




well thanks buddy, and you would know about more "appropriate" places to grow grapes?

Quote:

Currently, landowners who want to convert timberlands must apply for a permit from the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, a process that usually requires a rigorous series of environmental studies.

The proposed county ordinance would ban vineyards from displacing redwoods and Douglas firs that produce high-quality wood products. Land with other trees could be developed, but only if it benefits the public and the landowner plants two acres of high-quality timberland for every acre of grapes.




whoa, what happened to "special feelings" and we want the forest habitat to be preserved? you sound like you want it for lumber.

Quote:

"The county ordinance as it's written has been watered down to the point where it really doesn't protect forests," said John Holland, president of Friends of the Gualala River. "What's at stake is whether a redwood ecosystem that's taken thousands of years to develop will exist or be eliminated."




gotta love the polarization of this into a binary decision. "what's at stake..."

1000 year ecosystem... timberland... special feelings... high quality wood products.... i realize there is such a thing as sustainable logging practices. are the vineyards battling environmental people or environmental and logging people? assuming they are bedfellows, it doesn't create quite the same warm and fuzzy.

disclaimer... i live very far from there....
Randy Wigginton 

Master of Wine
Master of Wine
Posts: 10797

--
01-24-2006 03:41 AM  
I can't comment. I live close to this area, and think the sierra club has had its collective head up.. like I said, no comment
Jim Hanlon 

Barrel Filler
Barrel Filler
Posts: 1205

--
01-24-2006 04:02 AM  
I love Sonoma Coast pinot. One of the things I love about it is that when I'm drinking a glass, I can be transported to the tree-lined, foggy coastal hills. A vacation in a glass.

I'd hate to see the Sonoma Coast end up looking like some parts of Napa, where it can be hard to find a hill without a vineyard on it. The Sonoma Coast growing area is large and diverse (its quite a drive from Hirsch Vineyard, for example, to Peay Vineyard). There should be room for responsible development that takes into account remaining stands of old-growth redwoods (yes, I have a "special feeling" about these trees -- as do most people who have been out to see them) while still allowing for selective vineyard development.

I would hate to see rapid, relatively unplanned vineyard planting in this special, sometimes untouched, region. There are lots of excellent pinot vineyards in California, with many more on the way already. Sooner or later, the demand for pinot will recede a bit (just as it did for merlot a couple years ago). Once old-growth forest is cut, there is no replanting it. I'm not saying no development, just would like to see responsible development. Yes, that means some tough decisions, including some vineyards left unplanted. I'm okay with that, as I would expect most wine lovers who have spent time on the Sonoma Coast to be.
Al_ksyrah 


Barrel Sampler
Barrel Sampler
Posts: 2091

--
01-24-2006 04:59 AM  
I agree with the sentiment. What's never clear to me in these situations is how to equitably balance the rights of various landowners and the general public. I don't think we need that much vineyard land on the Sonoma Coast. I've also been told that land with mature forests don't make the best vineyards because there is too much organic matter in the soil. But how to decide who gets to develop?

-Al
pizinah 

Barrel Filler
Barrel Filler
Posts: 1313

--
01-24-2006 06:01 AM  
I agree completely with SFWine. It's a question of balancing interests and being reasonable and responsible about further development.
Pool Boy 
Laurl, MD (DC suburb)
Master of Wine
Master of Wine
Posts: 13767

--
01-24-2006 02:36 PM  
I tend to agree with you too, SFWine. I particularly love your first sentences --

Quote:

I love Sonoma Coast pinot. One of the things I love about it is that when I'm drinking a glass, I can be transported to the tree-lined, foggy coastal hills. A vacation in a glass.




That is sooooo true. When I drink a Peay wine, I instantly get transported back there to images like the two below....




www.roguefood.com -- www.cellartracker.com
Al_ksyrah 


Barrel Sampler
Barrel Sampler
Posts: 2091

--
01-24-2006 02:46 PM  
Quote:

I agree completely with SFWine. It's a question of balancing interests and being reasonable and responsible about further development.



Sure, I also agree with that statement as a concept. If everyone did the right thing and there were no transaction costs (in the economic meaning of the phrase), these issues would be easy to solve. But in reality, it tends to be difficult to balance interests and maintain equity when there are lots of different landowners and a regulatory process that is ripe for manipulation.

-Al
AlexRed 
Northern VA
Wine Thief
Wine Thief
Posts: 2658

--
01-24-2006 05:06 PM  
Quote:

Quote:

I agree completely with SFWine. It's a question of balancing interests and being reasonable and responsible about further development.



Sure, I also agree with that statement as a concept. If everyone did the right thing and there were no transaction costs (in the economic meaning of the phrase), these issues would be easy to solve. But in reality, it tends to be difficult to balance interests and maintain equity when there are lots of different landowners and a regulatory process that is ripe for manipulation.

-Al




i agree with the quoted statement and also the response. some of my "sneering" or suspiscion if you will, was directed at the failure of all the actual "interests" to be clearly illustrated (at least in the article)...

One thing i have learned in negotiating between parties is that understanding the base interests and drivers for the different parties is essential, regardless of whether there are 2, 3, 4 or more parties.

if people don't know why they want what they want, have ulterior motives (nefarious or honest), or have multiple groups with different goals trying to be on the same side, it muddies the situation and allows the groups to be vague or intransigent in their position which hinders the ability to achieve a consensus.
Ken Zinns 

Grape Stomper
Grape Stomper
Posts: 145

--
01-24-2006 05:41 PM  
Something that seems pretty clear to me is that it's only big winery / vineyard businesses that could afford to clear significant areas of forest to plant vines. I'm sure it would be far too expensive for small vineyard owners to do that. So I can understand the concern about essentially clear-cutting large areas of forest to open land for planting vines - to do that on a scale that would be cost effective would certainly have negative environmental effects.

I recall a similar issue, maybe 6-8 years ago, that dealt with removing oak trees in newly-developed vineyards in Santa Barbara County. Again it was the actions of a large wine business that triggered this (KJ if I recall correctly).
JimmyV 
Central Connecticut

Wine Connoisseur
Wine Connoisseur
Posts: 5168

--
01-24-2006 06:45 PM  
I agee with SFWine's sentiments, and Ken Zinn's analysis. Before we get all worked up about those trouble-maiking tree huggers, consider that they aren't concerned about Pete Marsh having an acre of grapes. (At least, I don't think they are.) They are worried about the Beringer Blasses and K-Js of the world moving heavy duty logging equipment up there and clear-cutting old growth forest. And to what end? To produce 250,000 more cases of nondescript 83 point Pinots? I would think that this is something that we should all fear.
Beta testing a new signature.
Al_ksyrah 


Barrel Sampler
Barrel Sampler
Posts: 2091

--
01-24-2006 09:17 PM  
You can't really figure out the players and agendas from that one article. Sometimes the additional costs caused by regulations added by those who want no-growth has the biggest impact on the small timers and much less impact on the corporate operations. But each battlefront is different. What happens far too seldom is the sort of genuine, well-though-out regional planning that would enable the sort of reasonable and responsible approach that most of us probably want. But maybe that will happen here.

-Al
Ken Zinns 

Grape Stomper
Grape Stomper
Posts: 145

--
01-24-2006 09:27 PM  
Quote:

Sometimes the additional costs caused by regulations added by those who want no-growth has the biggest impact on the small timers and much less impact on the corporate operations.



Excellent point, and something to watch for as this the response to this issue develops.
ChangeMe 

Grape Picker
Grape Picker
Posts: 1

--
02-07-2006 09:45 PM  
Whoa nelly! Too many points to discuss here… where to start?

I agree with SFWino, Al, Ken. There is room for responsible development that takes into account remaining stands of old-growth redwoods. Rapid, relatively unplanned vineyard planting in this special, sometimes untouched, region could be a distinct risk, if it weren’t for the cumbersome hurdles already in place. Still, the threat imposed by one development project in particular, raises legitimate alarm, and is a cause to rethink the permitting process. Right now there is a Sonoma County General Plan Update process in the finishing stages of implementing new rules (“county ordinance”) that are an attempt to preserve woodlands and actively restore depleted lands (from more than a century of repeated logging). Apparently, Premium Pacific Vineyards (PPV) feels it leaves their hands free enough to continue with their mega-development plans. IIRC, the parcels w/in their holdings are from 80 to multithousand acre in size.

Of the ~60,000(?) acres of mountainous timberland that they own out here, there are two flat sites with relatively little harm associated with putting vineyards on them. One is an airstrip (flat, already open land) but too high and too far inland for good Pinot, the other is a former apple orchard/pasture and airstrip which has about 80 acres of Pinot planted as of this Fall. The rest of the land is narrow valleys, narrow ridgetops, scarred old clearcuts, most of the timber value having been removed by the previous owner, poorly supported by old, crumbling logging roads.

PPV wants to divide and conquer. They are not vineyardists in the sense of dedicated, impassioned wine aficionados who want to make/grow the best Pinot noir in the world. They are developers who want to divide the land into ~75 acre ranchettes-with-vineyard, to be sold off at a tidy profit. There is no infrastructure to support the housing, no water developed for the narrow ridgetop vineyards, and almost all of the land is too far inland and too high in elevation to be any good for Pinot. They have developments in Alexander Valley, Napa Valley, and Willamette Valley, their intent being to buy up land, plunk in vineyards, and turn them, dividing them up where possible in order to maximize profit.

The county policy already opposes any subdivision of parcels out here. What PPV intends to do vis the new ordinance I don’t yet know.

As far as Chris Poehlmann and his claims and worries, they will be largely addressed, aside from PPV-sized development. We have abundant (though finite) water resources if growers impound rainwater and don’t rely on wells. Historically, property rights stipulate allocation of water rights on a first-come, first-served basis, assessing impact on the net health of the ecosystem, until it is determined additional water impounding would cause harm and no more water is available. We get five feet of rain every winter. I don’t think we’ve reached the limit yet. Already open lands are almost all gone by now, with a few exceptions. Desire for filthy lucre is a wildly outrageous claim for the motivation for any of these vineyard developments (except PPV): ‘Farmer’ and ‘poor’ are generally seen in close proximity, and will be if they aren’t initially. KJ’s plans were scaled down to just exploiting the pasture/orchard of the Ohlson ranch, 150 out of almost 1000 acres, only fencing in the vineyard, leaving the rest wild (better ecologically than “managed” timberland). This partial utilization is common practice for the other 9 growers in the area, albeit on smaller scales. Peay vyds has 48 acres of vines out of 280 total (similarly on old pasture/orchard).

Masonite carved up a slew of little 40 acre parcels before the county changed its policy on subdivisions, in the seventies. This provided for an influx of the likes of Chris Poehlmann, and other urban escapees, and more recently vineyards. On some of these little projects on which vineyards from two to nineteen acres were put in, the land was previously treed or partially, though it had mostly young regrowth and tan oak. Historically here in Annapolis, timber interests considered silva culture another type of agriculture, didn’t have a philosophical objection to swapping one crop for another. Ultimately, county zoning would greatly restrict that flexibility. Enviros have had such success recently with reducing the negative impact of logging, and thereby greatly restricting logging overall, that they are using a strategy to makeall lands – open or otherwise – be categorized as only commercial timber supporting. Meanwhile, very old timber companies like Gualala Redwoods are beginning to make noises that they can no longer make money harvesting trees.

A healthy ecosystem in the views of loggers and vineyardists assumes plenty of other neighbor lands remain relatively untouched for long stretches of time. Either activity, logging or planting vineyard, need be carried out in moderation, and moderation is a subject open for healthy debate. If we can prevent the PPV-sized projects from happening, I think another half dozen little open spots might eventually support small vineyards out here and that’s it.

Does the ordinance mean vineyard development is over out here? Future small scale vineyards on any land out here is in jeopardy. The county ordinance will see to that. What’s up with PPV? McRanch anyone?
Eric White 
San Ramon, CA

Advanced Sommelier
Advanced Sommelier
Posts: 9430

--
02-07-2006 10:36 PM  
Hey Nick! Welcome to Vinocellar. Heck of a first post!
2008: the end of an error
David Niederauer 
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Master Sommelier
Posts: 15756

--
02-07-2006 10:38 PM  
Interesting post Nick. Thanks.

I don't like what it says. It does look grim. Somewhere there has to be a comprimise on ecology v. owner's rights.

I wonder what percentage of the Sonoma County economy is wine related.
Ken Zinns 

Grape Stomper
Grape Stomper
Posts: 145

--
02-08-2006 12:02 AM  
Nice post, Nick! You've got more insight into these specific issues than anyone else here so it's great to see you explain your point of view so clearly.
Pool Boy 
Laurl, MD (DC suburb)
Master of Wine
Master of Wine
Posts: 13767

--
02-08-2006 02:46 AM  
Nick, that is a great read of a first post. Plenty to chew on and think about there.
www.roguefood.com -- www.cellartracker.com
Al_ksyrah 


Barrel Sampler
Barrel Sampler
Posts: 2091

--
02-08-2006 06:16 AM  
Thanks for posting and adding more information and insight from the frontline. Hopefully something rational will come out of all of this.

-Al
AlexRed 
Northern VA
Wine Thief
Wine Thief
Posts: 2658

--
02-08-2006 03:55 PM  
Nick,
Thank you very much for the information. It's great to have someone who is on the ground up there provide us with a much more detailed idea of what is going on and how the issues are impacting the different players.



Alex
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>


Active Forums 4.0

Related Links

VinoCellar Updates

 


Who's Online
MembershipMembership:
Latest New UserLatest:cmsyrah
New TodayNew Today:0
New YesterdayNew Yesterday:0
User CountOverall:2078

People OnlinePeople Online:
VisitorsVisitors:99
MembersMembers:11
TotalTotal:110


Where Are They
Members Where Are They:
Randy Sloan : Home
Bob Bressler : Home
Chilly Wino : Wine Forums
Big Al. : Wine Forums
Mark Hall : Home
scott j : Home
Tom Genn : Home
TimLinCA . : Home
Anonymous User [9] : Home
Anonymous User [87] : Wine Forums
Anonymous User [3] : My Messages
wineismylife * : Home

Privacy Statement    |    Terms Of UsePage generated in 0.5625 seconds.    |    Copyright 2002-2008 by Revlus, Inc.