DOCSLIB.ORG

Coast Dairies Long Term Resource Protection and Access Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coast Dairies Long Term Resource Protection and Access Plan COAST DAIRIES LONG-TERM RESOURCE PROTECTION T HE TRUST AND ACCESS PLAN F O R PUBLIC LAND February 2004 COAST DAIRIES LONG-TERM RESOURCE PROTECTION T HE TRUST AND ACCESS PLAN F O R PUBLIC LAND February 2004 Prepared by The Trust for Public Land for the Future Stewards of the Coast Dairies Property 225 Bush Street 8950 Cal Center Drive 710 Second Avenue 2685 Ulmerton Road Suite 1700 Building 3, Suite 300 Suite 730 Suite 102 San Francisco, CA 94104 Sacramento, CA 95826 Seattle, WA 98104 Clearwater, FL 33762 (415) 896-5900 (916) 564-4500 (206) 442-0900 (727) 572-5226 436 14th Street 4221 Wilshire Boulevard 1751 Old Pecos Trail 5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard Suite 600 Suite 480 Suite O Suite 440 Oakland, CA 94612 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Orlando, FL 32822 (510) 839-5066 (323) 933-6111 (505) 992-8860 (407) 851-1155 200071 A READER’S GUIDE TO THE COAST DAIRIES PLAN Coast Dairies Long-term Resource Protection and Access Plan RG-1 been a simple, straight-line trajectory from Swiss-owned dairy and A Reader’s Guide to the Coast farmland to public park. The Coast Dairies Plan is complete and stands by itself as land management guidance, but its future use and Dairies Plan the multiplicity of appendices spawned by the process require some explanation. The Trust for Public Land, in its role as first steward, had responsibilities that stretched backward to the funding entities and The document in your hands is the result of a comprehensive planning forward to the ultimate managers of the land. During the process of effort for the Coast Dairies Property (Property), including many years purchasing the Coast Dairies & Land Co. (CDLC), TPL issued a of citizen interest and involvement, interactions between public request for proposals to locate an entity to accept and care for the agencies and land stewards, intense resource inventory, professional Property. Based on proposals received, two agencies, the California land management planning, and unforeseen changes in the economy Department of Parks and Recreation (Department) and the of the state and the region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), were chosen in 1999 for ultimate ownership and joint long-term The Coast Dairies Property is located along California’s central coast stewardship of the Property. in northern Santa Cruz County and surrounds the town of Davenport. The approximately 7,000-acre Property consists of 6 distinct In the spring of 2000, a consulting firm, Environmental Science watersheds, more than 7 miles of stunning coastal resources Associates (ESA) of San Francisco, was selected to prepare a plan. (including 7 beaches), hundreds of acres of agricultural lands, 700 This firm, with the assistance of a Steering Committee (the acres of redwood forest, critical habitat for endangered species (coho prospective stewards, TPL, Coastal Conservancy, Save-the- salmon, steelhead, California red-legged frog, and snowy plover), and Redwoods League, and Land Trust of Santa Cruz County) and a other unique natural and cultural resources. Community Advisory Group (CAG), were tasked to develop a Plan that would serve as the blueprint, a kind of constitution that would In 1974, the publication of In the Ocean Wind: The Santa Cruz North establish the basic principles and make manifest the Vision Statement Coast, described the threatened natural beauty of this region and for Coast Dairies. This process has guided the ownership transition to became a call to action for long-term protection. Now with the 2004 BLM and the Department with the kind of transparency demanded by publication of this Coast Dairies Long-term Resource Protection and a concerned and very attentive public. Access Plan (Coast Dairies Plan or Plan), three decades have passed and the land we all know as Coast Dairies is poised to become public Preparation of the Coast Dairies Plan began with an extensive land, protected in perpetuity. examination of the Property’s attributes to assist in planning and land use guidance. The Coast Dairies Existing Conditions Report (ECR) The first chapters of the Coast Dairies Plan, especially Land Use was published in June 2001. Much more detailed than the Plan itself, History, tell the story of the Property’s near brush with becoming the the Existing Conditions Report has been revised several times to stay site of a nuclear power plant or residential development. In keeping current. It formed the most comprehensive reference when the actual with the Property’s complex history, the past five years, during which planning process began. Paper copies of the Coast Dairies Plan the Property was held by the Trust for Public Land (TPL), have not include the ECR as a compact disk in a pocket in the back cover. RG-2 A Reader’s Guide to the Coast Dairies Plan HOW THE COAST DAIRIES PLAN EVOLVED How the Coast Dairies Plan Evolved Second, spring 2002 brought with it new realities of state and federal funding for public land management. In March, both agencies reasserted their intent to steward Coast Dairies as envisioned in the Between June 2001 and the date of this Plan (February 2004) Plan, but acknowledged that it might take some time to secure the planning passed through the normal stages of a document of its type: budgets necessary to do so. At the April 2002 Steering Committee Community Advisory Group and more general public meetings, meeting, the harsh truths were confronted head-on by the Planning regular meetings of the Steering Committee, a “Constraints Analysis” Team. The consultants were instructed to draft a new chapter that (planning jargon for organizing and focusing the Plan), and finally would resolve both problems at the same time: describe a sequence multiple drafts of the Plan itself. On the whole, the Plan follows the of management intensities, from the basic custodial to full Plan logical sequence of extracting the most relevant information from the implementation. This Plan would describe the need to apply CEQA ECR and presenting it in abbreviated form in the Plan, stating and NEPA and incorporate Coast Dairies into the state and federal property-wide goals and standards, and specific direction budget mechanisms. This sequence is described in Chapter VII and (prescriptions) for different watersheds (management zones). as might be expected, went through several drafts before inclusion in the Plan. How BLM and the Department came to Adopt the Plan – Chapter VII and Appendix D The “Draft Final” Coast Dairies Plan was released at the end of June 2003. The public was invited to comment on the draft plan at the The planning process remained on track and close to schedule July 31, 2003 community meeting and to submit comments through through the end of 2001, with extended Steering Committee and CAG August 31, 2003. These comments, as well as notes from the July 31 meetings through the fall and the public presentation of the meeting, are contained in Appendix D. Beyond some updates and a Opportunities and Constraints Analysis in early 2002. Most of the few small errors of fact and lapses of clarity, which have been Planning Team’s assumptions remained intact until spring 2002, but at corrected, this Plan has not been substantially changed from the June that time two of them changed substantially. 2003 Draft. Most of the public comments received express support for certain specific policies. For the most part these actions would be First, it had been assumed by TPL and its consultant, ESA, that the allowed under the Plan, but public comments have called for policy planning process would include analysis of the Plan under the decisions that are more specific than the general level of policy California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National represented by the Plan. So that the public input can guide the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This would have meant that the agencies as specific policy decisions are made in the future, the Plan would be officially accepted by the Department and BLM at the Planning Team decided that it was preferable to retain all these time the Property was transferred. In March 2002, the Planning Team comments as literally as possible. As an appendix, maintained in the announced to the CAG that, as a non-profit agency, TPL could not project record, the land stewards can exercise their own judgment on prepare the NEPA/CEQA documents because, under law, it could not these comments when they consider the Plan afresh, as part of their be the “lead agency.” Further, BLM and the Department could not CEQA and NEPA deliberations. accept NEPA/CEQA documents on land they didn’t yet own and manage. As a result, it is now envisioned that the long-term Plan will stand alone until it can be legally integrated into the internal planning frameworks of the new land stewards. Coast Dairies Long-term Resource Protection and Access Plan RG-3 HOW THE COAST DAIRIES PLAN EVOLVED Coastal Agriculture, Water Rights, and Anadramous adjacent off-channel impoundment. NOAA Fisheries estimated that Fish – Appendices E and F there could be as many as a thousand young fish, or “fry,” in the off- stream pond. (TPL later contracted with ESA to monitor habitat Coast Dairies continued to be a vibrant working landscape during the conditions in San Vicente Pond through the winter and to measure planning years. Part of Coast Dairies’ authenticity is its ability to and release the coho and steelhead as they migrated out to sea.) combine human uses successfully with unique natural resources. Cattle were grazed, crops raised, beaches were visited. The Sustaining coastal agriculture is one of the primary reasons the Coast extraction of limestone for cement continued to be a thriving business.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today
    2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today 1 The partners of the Utility of the Future Today are pleased to present the inaugural program’s 61 public and private utilities from across the U.S., Canada, and Denmark selected by a peer committee of utility leaders from an impressive number of first year entries. The recipients were recognized and honored during a September 27 ceremony held in conjunction with WEFTEC 2016 in New OrleansWEF’s 89th annual technical exhibition and conferenceas well as a number of commensurate events sponsored by the partners. The recipients received a display flag and a special certificate to further identify and promote their outstanding achievement as a Utility of the Future Today. The following 61 utilities have met the criteria for Utility of the Future Today by meeting the Organizational Culture requirement plus at least one of the Activities identified above. Recognized Activities are indicated for each utility as identified by a and are listed in alphabetical order. 2 Table of Contents Background 6 Program Purpose 7 Aarhus Vand, Denmark 8 Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, NM 17 Alexandria Renew Enterprises, VA 23 Avon Lake Regional Water, OH 34 Baltimore City Department of Public Works, MD 38 Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, NJ 50 Charlotte Water, NC 61 City of Cedar Rapids, IA 71 City of Fayetteville, AR 76 City of Fond du Lac, WI 80 City of Grand Rapids, MI 86 City of Gresham, OR 94 City of Los Angeles – LA Sanitation, CA 99 City of Roseville, CA 108 City of San
    [Show full text]
  • 4.4 Biological Resources
    Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan EIR Section 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section addresses biological resources issues related to the proposed MBSST Network project described in Section 2.0, Project Description. A variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats are present along the three distinct trail reaches (northern, central and Watsonville reaches) of the proposed MBSST Network. The proposed MBSST Network ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 30 to 40 feet above sea level throughout the corridor. Portions of the proposed project are located within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County. Rincon Consultants, Inc. biologists visited the site on December 3, 11, and 12, 2012 and conducted reconnaissance-level floral and wildlife surveys along the proposed MBSST Network. To support the field investigation, data on biological resources were collected from numerous sources, including relevant literature, maps of natural resources, and data on special- status species and sensitive habitat information obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly the California Department of Fish and Game), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (2003; queried August 2012), the California Native Plant Society online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (2012), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) (2012b). The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (2012a) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; 2012c) were also queried. 4.4.1 Setting a. Habitats. The proposed MBSST Network contains 12 habitats mapped by the CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification system (Table 4.4-1).
    [Show full text]
  • Type of Services Current Conditions Soils, Geology, and Geologic Hazards Envision San José 2040 General Plan Update
    Type of Services Current Conditions Soils, Geology, and Geologic Hazards Envision San José 2040 General Plan Update Client David J. Powers & Associates Client Address 1885 The Alameda, Suite 204 San José, CA 95126 Project Number 118-13-2 Date March 20, 2009 Prepared Scott E. Fitinghoff, P.E., G.E. by Principal Geotechnical Engineer Philip A. Frame, C.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist Laura C. Knutson, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Quality Assurance Reviewer Table of Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2: SOILS AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ..................................................... 1 2.1 GEOLOGIC OVERVIEW OF SAN JOSÉ ......................................................... 1 2.2 LANDSLIDES ................................................................................................... 2 2.3 WEAK/EXPANSIVE SOILS .............................................................................. 3 2.4 NATURALLY-OCCURRING ABESTOS (NOA) ............................................... 4 2.5 EROSION .......................................................................................................... 4 2.6 ARTIFICIAL FILL .............................................................................................. 4 2.7 GROUND SUBSIDENCE DUE TO GROUND WATER REMOVAL ................. 4 2.8 MINERAL RESOURCES
    [Show full text]
  • Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Santa Clara Subbasin This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank REVISED FINAL SALT and NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN: SANTA CLARA SUBBASIN
    NOVEMBER 2014 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Santa Clara Subbasin This page is intentionally left blank REVISED FINAL SALT AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN: SANTA CLARA SUBBASIN Originally posted online in November, 2014; Revised in June 2016 to add San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board comments and Santa Clara Valley Water District responses ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREPARED BY: Thomas Mohr, P.G., H.G. Senior Hydrogeologist UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: James Fielder Chief Operating Officer, Water Utility Enterprise Garth Hall Deputy Operating Officer Water Supply Division Behzad Ahmadi Unit Manager,Groundwater (retired) CONTRIBUTORS: Chanie Abuye, Civil Engineer Randy Behrens, Geologist Ellen Fostersmith, Geologist (retired) Ardy Ghoreishi, Engineering Technician Robert Siegfried, Soil Scientist (retired) Miguel Silva, Associate Civil Engineer Xiaoyong Zhan, Civil Engineer GRAPHICS DESIGN: Benjamin Apollo BOARD OF DIRECTORS: John L. Varela, District 1 Barbara Keegan, District 2 (Chair) Richard Santos, District 3 Linda J. LeZotte, District 4 Nai Hsueh, District 5 Tony Estremera, District 6 Gary Kremen, District 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................. 5 1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Santa Cruz Mountains
    33 3. Field Trip to Lexington Reservoir and Loma Prieta Peak Area in the Southern Santa Cruz Mountains Trip Highlights: San Andreas Rift Valley, Quaternary faults, Stay in the right lane and exit onto Alma Bridge Road. Follow landslide deposits, Franciscan Complex, serpentinite, stream Alma Bridge Road across Lexington Reservoir Dam and turn terrace deposits, Lomitas Fault, Sargent Fault, Cretaceous fos- right into the boat dock parking area about 0.6 mile (1 km) sils, deep-sea fan deposits, conglomerate from the exit on Highway 17 north. A Santa Clara County Parks day-use parking pass is required to park in the paved lot. This field trip examines faults, landslides, rocks, and The park day use pass is $5. Vehicles can be left here for the geologic features in the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault and day to allow car pooling (the park is patrolled, but as always, other faults in the central Santa Cruz Mountains in the vicinity take valuables with you). of both Lexington Reservoir and Loma Prieta Peak (fig. 3-1). Detailed geologic maps, cross sections, and descriptions The field trip begins at Lexington Reservoir Dam at the boat featuring bedrock geology, faults, and landslide information dock parking area. To get to Lexington Reservoir Dam, take useful for this field-trip area are available on-line at theUSGS Highway 17 south (toward Santa Cruz). Highway 17 enters San Francisco Bay Region Geology website [http://sfgeo. Los Gatos Creek Canyon about 3 miles (5 km) south of the wr.usgs.gov/]. McLaughlin and others (2001) have produced intersection of highways 85 and 17.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S9142
    S9142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð SENATE September 25, 2000 Again, I didn't intend to come to the resources, to authorize the Secretary of the a very important amendment. We cer- floor this afternoon, but nor did I want Army to construct various projects for im- tainly have read a lot about Corps re- to sit and listen to debate which sug- provements to rivers and harbors of the form in the local newspapers, specifi- gests that the minority leader, or the United States, and other purposes. cally the Washington Post, over the Democratic caucus, or anybody else for The PRESIDING OFFICER. There last few months. The stories raised that matter, is at fault for what is tak- will now be 1 hour for closing remarks. very legitimate issues about the eco- Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. ing place. nomic modeling used to justify some of Madam President, I yield myself such As the Senator from West Virginia these water resources projects. indicated, there is perhaps sufficient time as I may consume. However, it is important to under- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- blame to go around. I don't disagree stand that a series of articles in a with that. But I also know that we ator from New Hampshire. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. newspaper is no substitute for careful didn't win the election. I wish we had. Madam President, this is the first consideration of the facts and of the We don't control the Senate. I wish we major piece of environmental legisla- issues by the Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 References
    5 REFERENCES 5.1 “LAND” REFERENCES Section 3A.1, “Aesthetics – Land” California Department of Transportation. 2008. Scenic Highway Routes: Caltrans Landscape Architecture Program. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. Last updated May 19, 2008. Accessed February 18, 2008. City of Folsom. 1993. City of Folsom General Plan. January 1993 update. County of El Dorado. 2004. El Dorado County General Plan. Adopted July 19, 2004. Placerville, CA. U.S. Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management. Chapter 1, Volume 2: The Visual Management System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook Number 462. Federal Highway Administration. 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Publication Number: FHWA-HI-88-054. Washington, DC. Sacramento County. 1993. Sacramento County General Plan. Adopted December 15, 1993. Sacramento, CA. Section 3A.2, “Air Quality – Land” Anderson, Charles. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Sacramento, CA. September 9, 2009―e-mail correspondence with Joseph Hurley of SMAQMD and Austin Kerr of AECOM regarding the status of the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. ARB. See California Air Resources Board. ARCADIS. 2007 (November 29). Draft Ambient Air Evaluation of Aerojet Area 40. Petaluma, CA. Letter memorandum from Steve Huntley, to Bruce Cline and David Miller, City of Folsom, Folsom, CA. California Air Resources Board. 1994 (June). California Surface Wind Climatology. Sacramento, CA. ———. 2003. HARP User Guide. Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/harpug.htm. Updated: July 29, 2008. Accessed August 2009. ———. 2005 (March). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Sacramento, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • Cycling Team About Us Join Us! Our Sponsors Clothing Giving Events Local Routes FAQ Contact
    Cycling Team About Us Join Us! Our Sponsors Clothing Giving Events Local Routes FAQ Contact Our favorite cycling routes near Stanford Local Routes (Road) Shorter Flat Options The mini-loop: This is the route you want to take on a day when your legs are screaming and your body is aching and anything more than half hour will kill you. Take Old Page Mill to Arastradero and right on Arastradero to Alpine and right on Alpine to Campus. Ideal addition to get your extra half hour in on your base training days when you miscalculated a longer ride. [Aerial Photo] The Loop: Ideal option for a flat route with no stop lights on a recovery day. The standard route normally starts o by heading up Alpine to Portola and taking Portola to Sand Hill. The reverse direction is popular with the tailwind speedsters dashing along the downward slant of Alpine Rd. The benchmark 15 mile route can be enhanced by further additions like Arastradero; going to the gate at the end of Alpine; adding the "maze" to it in Woodside. The "maze" is short for: taking Tripp on 84E to Kings, R on Kings, L on Manuella, L on Albion and R on Olive Hill to Canada (or the reverse direction). Time: 45 mins to 1 hr + (depending on additions) [Aerial Photo (B/W)] Foothill: Reserved for days when all you want to do is recover as frequent stop lights make any steady eort quite impossible. The turnaround points for 45 mins (Grant), 1 hr (Homestead), 1:15 (if the route parallel to foothill is taken on way back), 1:30 (Stevens Creek Blvd).
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda Albany PUBLIC RELEASE Berkeley Dublin DRAFT Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency October 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 7 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 7 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 7 2.3.1 San Francisco
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 130
    Calendar No. 130 109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 109–84 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006 JUNE 16, 2005.—Ordered to be printed Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 2419] The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water develop- ment for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2006 Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $31,245,000,000 Amount of 2005 appropriations ............................... 29,832,280,000 Amount of 2006 budget estimate ............................ 29,746,728,000 Amount of House allowance .................................... 29,746,000,000 Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 2005 appropriations .......................................... ∂1,412,720,000 2006 budget estimate ........................................ ∂1,498,272,000 House allowance ................................................ ∂1,499,000,000 21–815 PDF CONTENTS Page Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4 Title I—Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers—Civil: General Investigations
    [Show full text]
  • Sabercat Historical Park Signs / Interpretive Panels
    Appendix 6.1a: East View View East Appendix 6.1a: Interpretive Signs 1a Interpretive vulture Future location of Mission Peak Fremont cottonwood Diablo Range Western California bay laurel sycamore arroyo willow Western redbud cattail creeping wildrye tule ground sloth Western toad Painting by Don Ramie, 2016 Western pond turtle The Columbian mammoth was the About half of the animals living in the land mammals of the Irvingtonian Saber-toothed cats largest land mammal to live in North America during Irvingtonian landscape are present today, Many of the large of the genus Smilodon are the Irvingtonian Age, standing around 13 feet tall and including the Western pond turtle, mallard duck, continued into the late Pleistocene, but went extinct by The Western horse distant relatives of today’s was a large, stout grassland weighing about ten tons. A tusk found in this area and many others. wild and domestic cats. 6,000 years ago, due to climate change and human predation. grazer. It was the largest of was 13 feet long! These mammoths ranged from These massive carnivores Columbian mammoth the prehistoric horses that what is now the central United States all the way to Some species, like the raccoon, and red fox, surive to this had front canines as long as fossilized skeleton originated in North America, South America. seven inches, and preyed on day. Though the environment was wetter, landscape features and was similar in size to large herbivores. Smilodon a zebra. These horses lived and plant communities would be very familiar, resembling the Skull of Smilodon fatalis from fatalis is California’s state in herds, as wild and feral the La Brea Tar Pits fossil.
    [Show full text]
  • Protect Wildlife from Super-Toxic Rat Poisons
    Protect Wildlife From Super-toxic Rat Poisons August 31, 2020 Dear Governor Newsom, We, the 4,812 undersigned, urge you to place an immediate moratorium on the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in California, except in cases of public health or ecosystem emergencies, to protect the state's wildlife from imminent harm. Right now dozens of species are being hurt by these super-toxic rat poisons, including golden eagles, Humboldt martens, San Joaquin kit foxes and spotted owls. And more than 85 percent of California mountain lions, bobcats and Pacific fishers have been exposed to these rodenticides. Mountain lions in Southern California are in especially grave danger, as their populations are already isolated and close to extinction. Several mountain lions were recently found dead with multiple super-toxic rat poisons in their bloodstreams. Immediate action by the state is critical to prevent these populations' extinctions. In 2014 the state of California did act by pulling this class of rodenticides from consumer shelves. Unfortunately there hasn't been a decrease in the rate of wildlife poisoning from these products because licensed pest-control applicators continue to use them throughout the state. Stronger prohibitions are necessary. There's a wide range of safer, cost-effective alternatives on the shelves today. Strategies that prevent rodent infestations in the first place, by sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources, are a necessary first step. Then, if need be, lethal strategies can be used that involve snap traps, electric traps and other nontoxic methods. Please — move forward with a statewide moratorium on the use of these super-toxic rat poisons, pending the passage of A.B.
    [Show full text]