Share
Still time to comment on Calistoga Hills THP
Still time to comment on Calistoga Hills THP
Charlotte Williams | Mar 26, 2015 on: Calistoga & North Napa Co
Dear California Citizens,
Thank you so much for your many comments to CDF/CalFire regarding the Timber Harvest Plan for Calistoga Hills Resort. I am impressed and surprised at your response. There have been about 85 public comments submitted.
Although the close of comments date is posted as March 25, 2015 on the Cal Fire site, the actual close of comment cannot occur until 10 days following the Second Review for the THP -- which has not occurred as of 3/25/15. CGC will announce this date as soon as it is posted and hopes that you will join us for this critical meeting.
For those of you who would still like to comment, I had a request for bullet points. They are listed below.
Email comments to: santarosapubliccomment@fire.ca.gov
Or mail/deliver hardcopy comments to:
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
135 Ridgeway Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95436
Timber Harvest Plan identification: THP 1-13-126 NAP
Project: Calistoga Hills Resort, Calistoga, CA
Address to: Cal Fire and/or Participating Agencies
- Cite your opposition to THP 1-13-126 NAP for the Calistoga Hills Resort project in Calistoga, California, due to serious environmental concerns you have for the timber harvest and resort/housing project as planned.
- Request that your public comments be placed into the administrative record for the THP.
- Cite your specific findings or concerns; e.g., any serious environmental fault you have with the timber harvest plan as submitted.
These can include: (select and elaborate using your [organization's] expertise.)
- The conversion of woodland habitat to resort facilities and residential housing and the unmitigated land use impacts associated with a harvest and development of this size within city limits;
- The removal of over 8,000 native trees and the adverse effects of deforestation on forest carbon sequestration;
- The removal of over 8,000 native trees and the habitat they provide to native species of Napa County, protected or otherwise;
- The logging of over 8,000 native trees and the adverse effects of erosion on steep valley hillsides;
- Further degradation of the 303(d)-listed, impaired Napa River, with particular regard to sediment;
- The adverse impacts of stormwater run-off and the pollutants associated with it;
- The depletion of valley groundwater reserves and the potential for adverse effects to wells at the site (they are currently non-functioning) and adjacent properties;
- Continuing water supply problems in a county experiencing prolonged drought conditions and municipality experiencing a Stage 2 Water Emergency for a second consecutive year;
- The lack of county scrutiny and the cumulative impacts that the timber harvest and completed development will have on the greater Napa County, e.g., traffic failure; air quality, carbon off-sets, water quality, watershed, groundwater, fire, flooding, landslide, etc.
- The potential for conflagration in an area experiencing prolonged and extreme drought conditions;
- A lack of specific detailed evacuation route plans in the event of conflagration and a comprehensive plan to insure the safe evacuation of city residents, county residents, the local workforce, commuters, tourists, etc.
- Unresolved sewer system problems in a municipality under Cease and Desist Orders issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board last November, 2014;
- A lack of Spanish translation provided in any documents to date related to the harvest or project (this is best submitted by member(s) of the Latino community);
- SGMA (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act) not addressed;
- Brand new water-conservation policy(s) instituted by the state of California not addressed;
- Etc. ~ Ask questions, request data, which will require a detailed agency response
- Because of this and additional concerns you have for this environmentally sensitive location, (name of organization or submitter), I urge that you deny THP 1-13-126 NAP.
Watershed groups are especially encouraged to comment and to identify themselves as such, since the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has water quality concerns with the harvest.
To date, the following groups have commented, including:
Citizens for Green Community
Forests Unlimited
California Fisheries & Water Unlimited
Living Rivers Council
Napa Chapter, Sierra Club
Friends of the Napa River
Calistoga Tree Coalition
Napa Voice
Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe APC
Dear California Citizens,
Thank you so much for your many comments to CDF/CalFire regarding the Timber Harvest Plan for Calistoga Hills Resort. I am impressed and surprised at your response. There have been about 85 public comments submitted.
Although the close of comments date is posted as March 25, 2015 on the Cal Fire site, the actual close of comment cannot occur until 10 days following the Second Review for the THP -- which has not occurred as of 3/25/15. CGC will announce this date as soon as it is posted and hopes that you will join us for this critical meeting.
For those of you who would still like to comment, I had a request for bullet points. They are listed below.
Email comments to: santarosapubliccomment@fire.ca.gov
Or mail/deliver hardcopy comments to:
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
135 Ridgeway Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95436
Timber Harvest Plan identification: THP 1-13-126 NAP
Project: Calistoga Hills Resort, Calistoga, CA
Address to: Cal Fire and/or Participating Agencies
- Cite your opposition to THP 1-13-126 NAP for the Calistoga Hills Resort project in Calistoga, California, due to serious environmental concerns you have for the timber harvest and resort/housing project as planned.
- Request that your public comments be placed into the administrative record for the THP.
- Cite your specific findings or concerns; e.g., any serious environmental fault you have with the timber harvest plan as submitted.
These can include: (select and elaborate using your [organization's] expertise.)
- The conversion of woodland habitat to resort facilities and residential housing and the unmitigated land use impacts associated with a harvest and development of this size within city limits;
- The removal of over 8,000 native trees and the adverse effects of deforestation on forest carbon sequestration;
- The removal of over 8,000 native trees and the habitat they provide to native species of Napa County, protected or otherwise;
- The logging of over 8,000 native trees and the adverse effects of erosion on steep valley hillsides;
- Further degradation of the 303(d)-listed, impaired Napa River, with particular regard to sediment;
- The adverse impacts of stormwater run-off and the pollutants associated with it;
- The depletion of valley groundwater reserves and the potential for adverse effects to wells at the site (they are currently non-functioning) and adjacent properties;
- Continuing water supply problems in a county experiencing prolonged drought conditions and municipality experiencing a Stage 2 Water Emergency for a second consecutive year;
- The lack of county scrutiny and the cumulative impacts that the timber harvest and completed development will have on the greater Napa County, e.g., traffic failure; air quality, carbon off-sets, water quality, watershed, groundwater, fire, flooding, landslide, etc.
- The potential for conflagration in an area experiencing prolonged and extreme drought conditions;
- A lack of specific detailed evacuation route plans in the event of conflagration and a comprehensive plan to insure the safe evacuation of city residents, county residents, the local workforce, commuters, tourists, etc.
- Unresolved sewer system problems in a municipality under Cease and Desist Orders issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board last November, 2014;
- A lack of Spanish translation provided in any documents to date related to the harvest or project (this is best submitted by member(s) of the Latino community);
- SGMA (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act) not addressed;
- Brand new water-conservation policy(s) instituted by the state of California not addressed;
- Etc. ~ Ask questions, request data, which will require a detailed agency response
- Because of this and additional concerns you have for this environmentally sensitive location, (name of organization or submitter), I urge that you deny THP 1-13-126 NAP.
Watershed groups are especially encouraged to comment and to identify themselves as such, since the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has water quality concerns with the harvest.
To date, the following groups have commented, including:
Citizens for Green Community
Forests Unlimited
California Fisheries & Water Unlimited
Living Rivers Council
Napa Chapter, Sierra Club
Friends of the Napa River
Calistoga Tree Coalition
Napa Voice
Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe APC