 |
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
Question: Is it the purpose of POST & MROSD to keep their land holdings in its natural state for future generations to enjoy? Or is MROSD trying to protect the old growth Redwood trees?
It's The "OIL" Stupid!
Does POST or MROSD keep the land free of Oil drilling?
Nearly 30 years ago, local elected officials proposed that the Golden Gate National Recreational Area take control of coastal San Mateo County. Some of the Coastside farmers got a copy of USGS Map I 905 which showed the proposed project area for government take over focused only on oil bearing coastal land. After these USGS maps were revealed, the coastal annexation plan was put on hold but was reborn about 20 years later as the 1994 “Coastside Protection Initiative” sponsored by Lennie Roberts of the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) and Mary Hobbs of the Sierra Club. CGF, POST and MROSD had believed farmers and new coastal residents had forgotten about the tell-tale, condemning oil maps. The California Watershed Posse POSTed contains all the known San Mateo County watershed studies on record. In 1997, CGF sponsored Measure “F” aka MROSD Coastal Annexation Initiative. The GGNRA Coastal Annexation plan repackaged as the MROSD Coastal Annexation plan.

Oil-Bearing Rock report by Richard G Stanley U.S.G.S.


Oil bearing sands map U.S.G.S report I 905.
Compare this to Golden Gate National Recreation Area Point Reyes , Peninsula Open Space Trust and Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District coastal annexation area maps. As of January 2003, nearly 95 % of all San Francisco Peninsula coastal watershed lands are owned by government, POST or their partners MROSD.
Brown shaded areas of maps indicate oil bearing sands. A quote from this U.S.G.S. report states: "Fortunately, within the bay region the mineral commodities needed in large amounts for construction and industrial use could be found and extracted locally, hydrocarbon and geothermal energy resources were available, and some mineral products, such as saline’s and mercury, were even abundant enough to be exported. However mineral resources being nonrenewable, can be mined to exhaustion, or urban expansion can make them unavailable by covering them with streets and buildings".
The California Watershed Posse believes that the POSTed records speak for themselves; CGF, POST & MROSD have pursued a hidden agenda in their campaign to acquire the entire San Mateo County Peninsula Coastal Watershed .
Hayden Coggins, a Coastside rancher drilled 13 water wells off Alpine road of which 12 of the wells had oil. Oil has been a part of this area, and in the past there was evidence found of an operating oil refinery. Mr. Coggins told us Standard Oil leased his land for the oil rights back in the fifties. POST bought the Driscoll 3,000. acres ranch located in the La Honda for $21,000,000, but only offered $7,000,000. for the Moore ranch located near the beach. The market value for beach land is many times more valuable than the La Honda land. Could there be more oil near La Honda as indicated by the U.S.G.S. maps ?
Bob Marsh and Aldo Giusti, local Coastside farmers, purchased their farm lands from POST without the water, oil and mineral rights, all retained by the seller POST. After nearly a century of continued use, POST suddenly stop allowing the Giusti's to use the surface waters from the Arroyo Leon for farming . Why? Is it land or is it minerals and water rights POST and MROSD are after? Does open space exist for the publics’ interest, or for their own, private profit and agenda?
These are some serious questions that POST and MROSD need to answer before they should be allowed to continue their empire building Coastal Annexation. Has POST and MROSD provided the public “full disclosure” regarding their land holding? Shouldn’t they be required to give some written guarantees that the land will not fall into to the hands of big oil. Keep in mind our elected officials get large donations form big oil. These same County officials set us up and sold us out to oil back in the 50’s & 60’s. Can we trust the MROSD, POST and Government to protect our Coastal watershed lands. Why does POST buy the Coastal lands and keep the water and mineral rights, then sale the land to their partners MROSD? Are we taxpayers and the public being duped by corrupt big oil, POST and MROSD hidden agenda...again?! Fool us twice...Shame on us!!
Jack Glass, a local rancher protected the old growth trees during his life. After Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) got control of his land, many of the old growth trees on that property were cut down. We believe MROSD used the money to acquire more land in order to exploit the natural resources in our coastal watershed. Rather than protect the Redwoods, we suspect MROSD used the property to harvest the Redwoods. We would like to be proven wrong on this suspicion. We also wish that these majestic trees were still living. MROSD should be held responsible for this shameless, greedy destruction. Explore the old Jack Glass - Mac Donald ranch property, which is the red barn off Highway 84 and check this out for your self, let us know what you find. You may have to trespass, as hiking permits may not be given out by MROSD. Also check out the logging devastation we believe was committed under the control of MROSD in the name of “preservation” off Tunitas Creek road.
Does MROSD partner Peninsula Open Space Trust keep the land open for hiking?
Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) places many restrictions on public hiking access. After decades of hiking with her dog in the undeveloped Montara coastal watershed, local resident Nina Pellegrini was prevented from hiking in the open space park after it came under the ownership of POST. Nina requested an access permit from POST offices and received a public access permit application form faxed from "Cargill Inc." Redwood City offices in response to her request. Cargill Inc. is the 4th largest agricultural & mineral resource company in the world having a dubious record for bay and wetlands exploitation in the San Francisco Bay Area . What is the connection between Cargill Inc., POST and MROSD? Why does the public need permission from Cargill to use land they’ve paid for that is supposedly set aside for preservation and the public’s enjoyment by MROSD & POST?
POST and MROSD have promised more open trails access to use for equestrian, off road bikers and families with children that include additional comfort stations. The California Watershed Posse studies haven't found any evidence of this happening.
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
October 1, 2001 Ms. Loretta Barsamian Executive Officer 1515 Clay St., Suite 1400 Oakland California 94812
Subject: STOPPP’s Pollution Control Efforts and Eco-terrorism

Dear Ms. Barsamian:
On September 11, 2001 the Bay Area lost one of it’s finest environmental protection soldiers. Alan Beaven former Chief Clean Water Act Legal Counsel for our non-profit Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation aka Save Our Bay died on the terrorist hi-jacked United Airline Flight 93 bound for San Francisco. Alan’s fearless passion was the protection of the Bay Area’s drinking water, its quality and the watershed’s natural systems. He was instrumental in the formation of the SOB California Watershed Posse and the Watershed Quality Protection Program (WQPP). Alan’s last endeavor on behalf of the WQPP was to bring the new owners of an illegal landfill into full compliance. This open space landfill has no NPDES Stormwater Permit, as required by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec.1311(a) and has the potential to pollute, if it is not already doing so, the steel head stream Arroyo Leon, it’s adjoining wetlands and coastal waters. Unfortunately, Alan did not live to see the fulfillment of his efforts. On behalf of the WQPP and as a tenured guest on the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP TAC, I am requesting your support and that of the State RWQCB staff members Susan Gladstone, Habte Kifle and Ann Crum, in fulfilling Alan’s quest for the owners of the unlicensed landfill, Peninsula Open Space Trust - to come into full compliance or be investigated and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney Office as a "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Orgaanization" (RICO).
This past week, our WQPP Executive Director, Oscar Braun provided an extensive briefing to the FBI Terrorism Task Force outlining risk assessment for the SFPUC and Peninsula watershed unsecured areas and suspected eco-terrorist activities in San Mateo County. San Mateo County harbors many organizations that have gone to extreme measures to prevent the sustainability of SF Peninsula communities dependent on the Hetch Hetchy regional water system. These organizations have lobbied for decades that the Peninsula coastal zone, which comprises 75% of Peninsula watershed, should only be provided substandard levels of law enforcement, fire protection, water , sewer, emergency access roads and other infrastructure elements required to sustain watershed dependent communities and their natural systems. The Natural Resource Defense Council 1999 & 2000 report has identified San Mateo County as containing the most polluted waters in the Bay Area, posing the highest level of risk to the publics health and safety. Decades of a anti-infrastructure policies has virtually killed the SF Peninsula’s urban watershed.
The Bay Area’s drinking water supply is at greater risk now more than ever: From disruptions and shortages in the event of a Peninsula watershed wildland area firestorm, drought or arson/chemical/biological terrorist attack. All Bay Area community elected officials should take immediate steps to reduce the risk of a catastrophic outage for more than 2.5 million regional water system users. Now is the time to increase our efforts to protect California’s future by joining a new Watershed Quality Protection Partnership (MOU) and implementing it’s goals. I have enclosed the some of Alan Beaven’s case documents regarding his illegal landfill compliance efforts, WQPP program information and some background material on anti-community activities for your files.
Sincerely,
John Plock, RCE 26066
Chair, Environmental Review Director
CC: .Honorable San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Rep.Anna Eshoo, Senator Byron Sher, Rep.Joe Simitian, Rep. Louis Papan, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator John Burton, Mayor Willy Brown, HMBFPD Chief James Asche, CDF Chief Steven Wert, SFPUC Watershed Manager Joe Naras, BAWUA Executive Director Arthur Jensen.
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
10/22/03 "TOM LANTOS H.R. 532 "PAY TO PLAY' BILL HALTED"
Feds may take over 4,300 acres of coastal open space 10/29/03 By Jeanine Gore--Half Moon Bay Review
A subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation this week to allow the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to expand into Montara. The parks subcommittee passed H.R. 532, a bill allowing GGNRA to include nearly 4,300 acres of Rancho Corral de Tierra property - which includes Montara Mountain and parts of Devil's Slide - into its boundaries.
While action prompted applause from open space proponents, it also came with an important hitch they're not too happy about. About 232 acres of prime farmland - currently used to grow artichokes, pumpkins, brussels sprouts and fava beans - was removed from the bill, following lobbying from agricultural interests. This means that, if the 232-acre parcel isn't reintroduced into the final version of the bill, the GGNRA will not have an option to purchase it. GGNRA will, however, still have the option to buy up surrounding land. Jack Olsen of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau said omission of the 232-acre farm was important to the agricultural industry because it acts as a safeguard, ensuring that land always remains in production.
However, Audrey Rust, president of Peninsula Open Space Trust, disagreed. The trust owns Rancho Corral de Tierra, and removal of the farmland, she said, was "difficult" and "frustrating" for POST. She said the trust had "always intended to sell (the 232 acres) to the farmer," who currently leases the land. But without the possibility of selling to the GGNRA, the land doesn't look as appealing to the farmer, she said. "If he has no option of selling to the federal government, he loses a very good potential buyer," Rust said. This means POST could be left holding the deed on this small parcel, with no one to sell it to. "We don't want to keep the land - it's a hassle for us to keep the land," said Deirdre Holbrook of POST. Holbrook said the trust is focused on "making sure that (the farmer) can buy the land." Giving him the option of selling to GGNRA, she said, makes it more appealing - because he may one day want to sell and recoup his long-term investment.
The farmer, David Lea, owner of Cabrillo Farms, Inc., said in a June 10 letter to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that he favors the boundary expansion, which would include his land. "I would like it known that I am in support of the (GGNRA) Boundary Expansion," he wrote. Lea was unavailable for further comment. Rancho Corral de Tierra comprises the four main peaks of Montara Mountain, the Devil's Slide Bypass right-of-way and an area along Devil's Slide on Highway 1. Despite opposition from the farmer on the land and from the open space trust, officials with the San Mateo County Farm Bureau are pleased about the removal of those 232 acres from the bill. Olsen said he considered it a victory for agriculture. "A small little tiny parcel," he said, "but look at the bigger picture. For us, it is a significant victory in a significant issue. "It's important because protection of every inch of agricultural land in productivity is one of our goals and precepts." The Farm Bureau's main concern is protecting farming interests, and that's exactly what has happened, Olsen said. By leaving that farmland out of the bill, it guarantees the parcel will remain as it is, he said. "Our position is protecting the long-term health and viability of the agricultural land into perpetuity," he said. "By POST's own admission, this is some of the finest agricultural land in San Mateo County."
The next step in the legislative process for this bill will be a review by the Committee on Resources, which is expected to meet before the end of October. Lynne Weil, spokesperson for Congressman Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), who introduced the bill, said the debate over the 232-acre parcel is not yet over. The land could be again included with the legislation, she said. "We are hoping as the bill advances to the committee that there is something we can do to get the ag land back in there," Weil said.
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?

January 17, 2002 To: Honorable Jerry Hill, President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors From: Oscar Braun, Executive Director, WQPP California Watershed Posse Subject: Final Notice of Violations: POST, Half Moon Bay Sealing & Paving, Wildlife Associates
Dear Jerry,
Enclosed please find three Notices of Violations (NOV) of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Coastal Act presented to the County of San Mateo over the last twenty five months. The Coastside Watershed Posse has requested that the County:
- Require the three cited violators to apply for the required Coastal Development Permits (CDP).
- Require the three cited violators to conduct EIR studies for their illegal development within a delineated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)
- Require POST to fully comply with State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Order No.97.03 by applying for a permit to operate a landfill.
- POST must comply with the 1998 County of San Mateo’s order to conduct a full sub-surface level II (soil) assessment/survey on the entire landfill area (250 acres) while being supervised by SWRCB certified engineers. NOTE: The sworn declaration of Anne T. Jensen, R.E.H.S. provided by the County to the Court stated in part….”Defendant provided me with a copy of its Level I and Level II assessment of the property. The Level II assessment contained the analysis of three (3) soil borings .No water quality samples were included. At no time was I notified of the implementation of this investigation and therefore, I am unable to comment on the adequacy of the sampling. (attached please find Jensen’s signed declaration before the Court)
- POST must place water quality monitoring wells throughout their Johnston Ranch landfill operation area
- POST must acquire a NPDES permits for discharging pollutants into the States’ water bodies.
The Coastside Watershed Posse has petitioned the Court to appoint the Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation as a conservator of the POST Johnston Ranch landfill holdings. The Foundation intends to establish an environmental remediation fund to benefit the Arroyo Leon and the ground water reservoir lying only fifteen feet below the landfill. The C.W.Posse is requesting for the final time that the County exercise their regulatory responsibility by enforcing full compliance with the CA, CWA, ESA environmental protection laws. Without enforcement, the County and the Foundation will not be able to secure any Proposition 13 funding because of these three cited commercial and industrial non-permitted violators. We are respectfully requesting that the Planning Administrator Terry Burnes notify our Executive Director Oscar Braun, by close of business Friday the 25th of January of the County’s intentions regarding issuing their Notices of Violation (NOV) for the above captioned violations.
"Scheme” Kills Fed Highway Funding "Save Devil’s Slide FHWA Funding " Sec. Norman Mineta
Sincerely, Oscar Braun Executive Director
CC. Marcia Raines, Terry Burnes, Mark Delaplaine CCC, C.Sproul EPA, Loretta Barsamian RWQCB, FBI Task Force, R. Slaughter TE/GE IRS, Willy Brown, Dianne Feinstine, John Burton, Anna Eshoo, Byron Sher, Joe Simitian, Louis J. Papan
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
Set My People Free Coastside Group Pushing New City By Tim Hay, STAFF WRITER Saturday, October 11, 2003 - HALF MOON BAY
A newly formed Coastside group wants to wrest control of some 30,000 unincorporated acres from an open-space agency and form a new city: the Town of Rural Lands. The new town would be free from the "tyranny" of County government, environmental groups and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, said Oscar Braun, founder of the Rural Lands Incorporation Now Committee. It would be the first new incorporated area since 1983 when East Palo Alto was formed. "We're an agricultural community. We have virtually nothing in common with the urban areas, but our rights are determined by the urban majorities," Braun said Thursday from his home just outside Half Moon Bay. "People (on unincorporated coastal land) want self-governance, self-determination. What we have now is a kind of apartheid system." Braun, a retired Johnson & Johnson executive, founded the group with former Woodside mayor John Blake, retired civil engineer John Plock and several other Coastsiders. "This is an attempt by the residents of rural lands to take control of their own destiny," Plock said from his home Thursday.
More than 100 people out of the 6,500 or so that live on rural land have already joined his crusade, Braun said. On several bellicose Web pages that quote liberally from the Bible and the Constitution -- and feature moving images of wild pigs -- Braun and other committee members denounce "Enviro-cults" and "racketeer-influenced" government, and lay out in detail the plan for the Town of Rural Lands. The town would be governed by a five-member council, and operate on the property taxes that the open-space agency now receives from Woodside, Atherton, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Redwood City and Portola Valley, Braun said. City leaders would also collect vehicle-license fees, franchise fees and an assortment of other routine charges. Government services could be kickstarted by an initial general fund balance of $100,000, Braun predicts. The group must get 25 percent of the 3,200 registered voters of the rural lands to sign a petition in favor of forming the new town, which would be submitted to the County's Local Agencies Formation Commission.
The commission has jurisdiction over all boundary changes and annexations on the Peninsula. If LAFco approved it, the plan could be put before voters in the next general election. But Martha Poyatos, LAFco's executive officer for the County, does not exactly gush with joy when asked about the prospect. In a March 27 letter to Braun, she brought up conflicts with the County's General Plan and Local coastal Program, and said a thorough study of the idea could cost the committee more than $100,000. "Of even greater concern is the fiscal viability of a new city in the current climate of local government finance in which well-established cities with diverse sources of local revenue are being forced to cut vital city programs," Poyatos wrote. But to Braun, fending off special districts and environmental groups is well worth the risk. Braun, who formed Save Our Bay and the Half Moon Bay's Surfrider Foundation, has been a thorn in the side of every agency, supervisor or environmental group that has tried -- successfully or not -- to regulate or control unincorporated areas. "These cults are trying to undermine our communities and our governments," he said. Braun has fought the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District since it announced in 1997 a plan to annex some 140,000 acres from Skyline Drive to the coast. He and others have said the agency has no plan for the area, cannot provide fire safety and has diminished residents' water rights.
In an effort to boost membership in their organization, the proponents of the new town are hosting a forum on Oct. 16 at the 4-Cs ranch off Highway 92 at 7 p.m. It will be moderated by a consultant who works with LAFco in Santa Barbara. The 4-Cs ranch is owned by John Cozzolino, who tried unsuccessfully to get a permit to bring elephants to his farm for this month's pumpkin festival in Half Moon Bay. County Planners shot down the permit, fanning the anger of Braun and others. "There's a group of urban officials deciding a farmer can't have something on his land that's permitted by law," Plock said.
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
October 29, 2003 San Mateo County Times
Open Space District files expansion application By STAFF REPORTS
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District submitted a long-awaited application Tuesday to extend its boundaries to the San Mateo County coast. The application was received by the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. The program would bring 140,000 acres of open space stretching from Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line under the jurisdiction of the district.
Question: Total Parks & Open Space San Mateo County? Answer: Shared Vision 2010 Question: How many houses in the Rural Lands & how many acres? Answer: SMC Housing Log Question: How much Open Space Greenbelt in the Bay Area: Answer: Over 1 Million Acres!
Sustainable San Mateo County Database: LAND USE DATA
Allocation of Land Uses by County |
County |
Urban% |
Rural% |
Greenbelt% |
Estimated UDI1 |
Alameda |
29.2 |
56.9 |
21.6 |
25 |
Contra Costa |
30.2 |
46 |
23.8 |
16 |
Marin |
14 |
35 |
51 |
14 |
Napa |
4 |
75.8 |
20.2 |
16 |
San Francisco |
79.4 |
1.3 |
19.3 |
92 |
San Mateo2 |
26.2 |
39.1 |
34.7 |
22 |
Santa Clara |
21.5 |
56.9 |
21.6 |
21 |
Solano |
9.7 |
71.1 |
19.2 |
8 |
Sonoma |
6.3 |
83.7 |
10 |
18 |
|
Source: Greenbelt Alliance: Greenbelt at Risk 2000 1. Urban Density Index (UDI): Total housing units/urban square miles/100. Source: US Census 2000 2. Total area of San Mateo County is 285,339 acres. |
"The district's Coastside Protection Program is the only way to protect and preserve the coast, while also ensuring accountability to local residents through fair and democratic representation," said Craig Britton, district general manager. In what district officials call an act of goodwill, their board of directors agreed to eliminate their ability to use eminent domain in the plan's coastal area and to only purchase property from willing sellers. In addition, the program will only use existing district funds and will not request any additional taxes from area residents, officials said.
County Supervisor Richard Gordon, whose district would be most affected if the application is passed, said he has not yet taken a position on the issue. John "Jack" Olson, executive manager of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau, said his organization will most likely oppose the plan, but will wait until members can take a closer look at the application. The ultimate decision on the program will be made by LAFCO.
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
MROSD COASTAL ANNEXATION FINAL EIR
May 28, 2003
To: Board of Directors of the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD)
From: Oscar Braun, Executive Director, California Watershed Posse
Re: MROSD Coastal Annexation Area FEIR & NOI Petition for Writ of Mandate
The Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation aka California Watershed Posse (CWP) has reviewed the above captioned MROSD FEIR in order to determine “both whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the agency’s decision”. (Citation) The Coastside Fire Safe & CRMP Council review of the MROSD Annexation project FEIR has determined that the “No MROSD Coastal Annexation Project Alternative” causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment while being consistent with the local and regional planning. MROSD Coastal Annexation Area FEIR is inadequate and fails to meet the standards of review required by CEQA.. The CWP hereby provides Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a Writ of Mandate requiring judicial review of any MROSD project alternative findings within a certified “Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) other than a “No Coastal Annexation Project Alternative”. Why ? Because reasonable coastal Rural Lands residents could not reach the conclusion reached by the urban MROSD Board of Directors.
Standards of Review: Sierra Club vs. CCC Petition for WRIT of Mandate
The standards which governed CWP review of your agency’s decision are set forth in the Court of Appeals opinion in Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission (1993). “The agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order….By focusing….upon the relationships between evidence and findings and between findings and ultimate action, the Legislature sought to direct the reviewing courts attention to the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. In so doing, we believe that the Legislature must have contemplated the agency would reveal this route.” (Citation)
“In determining whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s reasoning process, the trial court must look at the whole record (Citation) “The “in light of the whole record” language means that the court reviewing the agency’s decision cannot just isolate the evidence supporting the findings and call it a day, thereby disregarding other relevant evidence in the record. (Citation) Rather, the court must consider all relevant evidence, including evidence detracting from the decision, a task which involves some weighing to fairly estimate the worth of the evidence. (Citation) That limited weighing is not an independent review where the court substitutes its own findings or inferences for the agency’s. (Citation) It is for the agency to weigh the preponderance of conflicting evidence (citation). “Courts may reverse an agency’s decision only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency.” (Citation)
On behalf of the CWP, I will be addressing the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the MROSD, Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 7P.M. in the San Mateo County Supervisors Chambers, Hall of Justice and Records, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California.
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
MROSD COASTAL ANNEXATION FINAL EIR
NEWS FLASH 10/27/03
MROSD Carpet Baggers Seek Santa Clara Court Venue
Dear Editor:
I enjoyed reading Deborah Ettinger's October 23, 2003 letter to the editor. She points out that the proposal by Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to annex of San Mateo County's Coastside is based on a false sense of "protection" that is both unwelcome and unneeded. What your readers may not know is that over 95% of the rural coastside lands is already in the hands of public or private open space organizations.
With less than five percent of the lands held by private taxpayers, and much of that preserved under the Williamson Act, the coastal farming community is now an endangered species. Can these taxpayers depend upon MROSD or their elected officials to protect them? San Mateo County is the only County out of California's 58 counties where Supervisors are elected by a County-wide election rather than a vote limited to the district they represent. It is no wonder that many of the 3,600 voters that live in nearly 100,000 rural acres feel disenfranchised. As Ms. Ettinger suggests, their best hope is incorporation into a town of there own. Given their fight against taxation without representation, perhaps they should call the new town "Liberty" or "New Boston".
But what of MROSD desire to annex jurisdiction over our lands? There offer of "protection" is reminiscent of the British offer of "protection" given colonists by the British practice of "quartering"--- forcing colonist to accept British Soldiers into their home even if they were unwelcome. Even a docile group of cloistered nuns is not safe. Just think back a few years ago when MROSD voted 6-1 to seize the 284-acre property owned by nuns in the rural hills of our County using their power of condemnation, bringing them to financial ruin in the wake of the legal battle. Perhaps this is why both the Councils for both Menlo Park and Woodside declined MROSD's request to support the annexation.
Feeling a lack of elected representation, MROSD's annexation plan is now being challenged by coastsiders in court. As one of the attorneys fighting MROSD in our local court, I can tell you how much MROSD trusts the residents of our County. MROSD has filed a motion to disqualify the local judge assigned to the case as "prejudiced" and has filed a motion to change venue to Santa Clara County. If MROSD doesn't trust a local well respected judge (who the voters of San Mateo County have retained for decades) or trust the people and courts of San Mateo County to hear the case against them, should we trust them to annex and control our lands? MROSD's offer of "protection" is both unnecessary and suspect. Local management and control is a better solution, and another reason to support the incorporation of our local rural lands. Support democracy and incorporation, not annexation and extinction, otherwise you may be inviting an unwelcome soldier into our homes, armed with the power of eminent domain.
Ted J. Hannig of Woodside is a community volunteer and the recipient of two Community Start awards.
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
MROSD COASTAL ANNEXATION FINAL EIR
Chuck Kozak's Non-Facts About MROSD Open Space OP/ED 11/1/03
There Chuckie Kozak goes again. You all remember Chuckie? He's was the Sierra Club's "Think Tunnel" Sooner, Safer, Cheaper! campaign media guru. Well urban neighbors, the California Watershed Posse has come to your rescue again with "Just The Facts" provided by the official San Mateo County Shared Vision 2010 publication found online since 2001 (see Rural Lands Demongraphics below). With regards to the total Coastal Rural Lands area Chuckie's 40% figure is only off by 55.18%.
How about that 1998 Coastside Advisory Vote for the MROSD 140,000 acre Annexation? The unincorpated Rural Lands area vote on MROSD Annexation was 56% NO to 44% YES. The MROSD Annexation Advisory Vote ONLY passed in the Sierra Club Envirocult occupied No Growth URBAN territories of the Coastside where Chuckie is still acting as Minister of Prapaganda for the Mid-Coast Advisory Council.
MROSD has fully retained their Eminent Domain powers and has promised not to use it until the next farm family or church organization tries to develope their lands ( remember the Russian nuns). And finally with regards to the MROSD rangers being on their MROSD lands to watch CDF put out the fire with air tanker drops... the Coastside Fire Safe Council says thank you for being there rangers.
Chuckie, my blessed Mother used to say to me, "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!" On behalf of the resident majority of the SMC Coastal Rural Lands Chuckie..."THINK RLINC"
SAN MATEO COUNTY RURAL LANDS AREA DEMOGRAPHICS:
Total Rural Lands Area: 99,621 Acres (100%) Total Privately Held Taxpaying: 4,811 Acres (4.82%) Total Government & Land Trust : 94,810 Acres (95.18%)
Dr. Andrea Braun, Co-Founder of the Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation aka California Watershed Posse www.cwposse.org SMC Rural Lands
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
MROSD COASTAL ANNEXATION FINAL EIR
``Regime Change" For SMC The Rural Lands
April 10, 2003
To: Honorable Rose Jacobs Gibson, President , SMC Board of Supervisors Honorable Don Horsley, Sheriff , San Mateo County Honorable Steve Wert, CDF Unit Chief, San Mateo & Santa Cruz County Honorable John Sims, Chief CDF San Mateo County Fire Honorable James Ashe, Chief Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District Honorable Meg Delano, Chair, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council Martha Poyatos, LAFCo Executive Officer
From: Oscar Braun, Executive Director, HMB Coastside CRMP & Fire Safe Councils Subject: Rural Lands Incorporation aka Regime Change
On March 19, 2003, the Half Moon Bay Coastside Fire Safe & CRMP Council formally filed: ``Notice is hereby given of the intention to circulate a petition proposing: The incorporation of the San Mateo County unincorporated Rural Lands. The reorganized incorporation area shall be known as: Rural Lands Inc." (See attached NOI). The act of incorporation is a legal and administrative change and does not itself produce an environmental effect. The incorporated Rural Lands will be guided and in full conformance with the certified San Mateo County General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The new reorganized community of the Rural Lands will in fact simply have a ``regime change" from an elected municipal ``advisory council" to an elected ``Rural Lands Governing Council.
The only community services currently allowed under the San Mateo County General Plan and Local Coastal ``apartheid" Program for the Rural Lands area residents and recreation tourist are substandard roads, fire and law enforcement protection. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors codified the reduction of these vital public health and safety services by adopting the Committee for Green Foothills and Sierra Clubs Coastside Protection Initiative of 1994. Section 1. Purpose of this Measure: Reduction of Government Expenditures. To reduce the cost to San Mateo County taxpayers of roads, law enforcement, fire protection, and other government services for scattered and remote development aka Rural Lands. The San Mateo County Fire Safe Committee has been notified by Sheriff Horsley, because of budget reductions exceeding twelve per cent, that the Sheriff Department is shutting down the Men's Correctional Center and will not be able to fund any Fire Safe Crews. San Mateo County has created the worlds largest ``regional urban recreational theme park" (over 94,000 acres of parks & open space) while exhibiting a reckless disregard for the publics health and safety in addition to jeopardizing the entire San Francisco Peninsula wildland urban interface (WUI) vital watershed resources to a catastrophic disruption. (See attached)
The Rural Lands proposed fiscal municipal model assumes continuation of the same revenue streams currently being received by the County to pay for their LCP mandated substandard levels of protective service imposed upon providers CDF, HMBFD and SMC Sheriff Department. The Rural Lands proposed revenue model imposes a new municipal Rural Lands CRMP user fee scheme for all ``non tax paying property owners". The Rural Lands CRMP user fees, some authorized under PRC 4290 & PRC 4291 for example, will generate over $20 million dollars more per year for roads, fire and law enforcement services. The incorporated Rural Lands will contract with CDF and the SMC Sheriff's Department to provide prudent and mandated fire and police services including the SMC Fire Safe Crews. The incorporated Rural Lands will provide it's residents and all Californians the highest level of health and safety services. Why?... because California taxpayers have paid for it and demand nothing less when it comes to their homeland security. The residents of the Rural Lands are unwilling to continue to suffer the tyrannical apartheid policies imposed upon them by this dysfunctional urban Board of Supervisors that serves at the pleasure of the Committee for Green Foothills and Sierra Club. God Bless America!
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
The MROSD Coastal Annexation FEIR doesn't support their findings of “no significant negative impacts”. The CWP has been informed by a MROSD employee that MROSD introduced weevils into their District’s open space lands recently in an attempt to control their invasive Yellow Starthistle problem. They didn't conduct or include a "weevils impact study" determining the cumulative impact to the proposed Coastal Annexation Endangered Species critical habitat or agricultural crop lands. Note what the expert at the University of California state: "It is too early to know the impact of these natural enemies on yellow starthistle in California. It will likely take a long time to achieve effective biological control.” The insects become more numerous and thus more available with each succeeding year. The most recent releases, Eustenopus villosus and Chaetorellia succinea, have proven to be the most effective agents for yellow starthistle seed suppression. These insects are becoming more widespread throughout the state. Land owners and managers with yellow starthistle problems may contact their County Department of Agriculture about obtaining these biological control insects. (See below) This District continues to intentionally bypass all the State (CEQA) & Federal (NEPA) environmental regulatory protection processes.
VIEW MROSD FEIR WEB PAGE http://www.openspace.org/coastside/Default.htm
UC Pest Management Guidelines
YELLOW STARTHISTLE Home & Landscape Published: 2/99
IN THIS GUIDELINE: IDENTIFICATION BIOLOGY MANAGEMENT PUBLICATION INFORMATION
Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis, is native to Eurasia and was introduced to California around 1850 via South America. It is now common in open areas on roadsides, rangeland, wildlands, hay fields, pastures, and waste areas. Recent reports indicate that yellow starthistle infests between 10 and 15 million acres in California. The disturbance created by cultivation, poorly timed mowing, road building and maintenance, or overgrazing favors this rapid colonizer. It forms dense infestations and rapidly depletes soil moisture, thus preventing the establishment of other species. It is also poisonous to horses, causing a nervous disorder called "chewing disease" (nigropallidal encephalomalacia) that is fatal once symptoms develop. Horses are the only animal known to be affected in this manner and should not be allowed to graze on yellow starthistle.
Identification Yellow starthistle is a gray-green to blue-green plant with a deep vigorous taproot. It produces bright, thistlelike yellow flowers with sharp spines surrounding the base. Yellow starthistle grows to heights varying from 6 inches to 5 feet. The stems of mature plants are rigid, spreading, and typically branching from the base in open areas. Stems and leaves are covered with a loose, cottony wool that gives them a whitish appearance. Stems appear winged due to leaf bases that extend beyond the nodes. Basal leaves are 2 to 3 inches long and deeply lobed. Upper leaves are short (0.5 to 1 inch long) and narrow with few lobes.
Biology Yellow starthistle is a long-lived winter annual that is usually found below 6,000 feet elevation in dry, light-intensive areas where average annual rainfall is between 10 and 60 inches. Seed output can be as high at 30,000 seeds per square meter, with about 95% of the seed being viable soon after dispersal. Most seeds germinate within a year of dispersal, but some can remain viable in the soil for more than 3 years.
Yellow starthistle seeds germinate from fall through spring, which corresponds to the normal rainy season in California. After germinating, the plant initially allocates most of its resources to root growth. By late spring, roots can extend over 3 feet into the soil profile, although the portion above ground is a relatively small basal rosette. This allows yellow starthistle to out-compete shallow-rooted annual species during the drier summer months when moisture availability is limited near the soil surface. It also helps explain why yellow starthistle survives well into the summer, long after other annual species have dried up, and why it can regrow after top removal from mowing or grazing.
The competitive ability of yellow starthistle also depends on light intensity at the soil surface during the seedling and rosette stages of development. Yellow starthistle proliferates at high light intensity and does poorly in low light. High light conditions often occur along roadsides, in disturbed sites, grasslands, and on south-facing slopes at higher elevations.
Management Control of yellow starthistle cannot be accomplished with a single treatment or in a single year. Effective management requires control of the current population and suppression of seed production, combined with establishment of competitive, desirable vegetation.
Prevention Yellow starthistle proliferates along roadsides. Invasion by this weed may be increased with the disturbance created by road building and maintenance. Seeds are often spread by vehicles or with the transportation of livestock or contaminated soil. Survey roadsides for the presence of this weed and immediately control new infestations to prevent its seed production and subsequent spread.
Yellow starthistle also can be spread as a contaminant in grass seed. Only certified seed should be used for range or pasture seeding. Seed may also come as a contaminant in all classes of hay, particularly grass hay. Carefully check hay shipments for evidence of yellow starthistle. Hay used as mulch along roadsides or disturbed areas can be a source of yellow starthistle introduction. When feeding hay is suspected of containing yellow starthistle, place bales in one area and periodically check around feeding areas for signs of starthistle seedlings. Livestock that have fed in yellow starthistle-infested areas should not be pastured or shipped to uninfested areas. Control newly emerged seedlings to prevent establishment. It is important to control new infestations when they are small because spot eradication is least expensive and most effective at this time.
Biological Control Five natural enemies of yellow starthistle have been imported from Europe and are well established in California as of 1998. These biological control agents include two weevils (Bangasternus orientalis and Eustenopus villosus) and three flies (Urophora sirunaseva, Chaetorellia australis, and Chaetorellia succinea). They all attack the flower/seed head and directly or indirectly reduce seed production, the only means of reproduction and spread of the weed. The insects lay their eggs in, on, or near flower/seed heads and complete their development within them. Eustenopus villosus adults also directly reduce seed production by feeding on immature flower heads. All of these insects are highly host-specific to yellow starthistle and do not attack commercially valuable crops or native plants.
Following release of these natural enemies, protect the release area from practices that may damage the insects. Such practices include insecticide applications, soil cultivation, summer-prescribed burning, or mowing when the plants are in the flowering stage. After establishment, the insects are capable of building up to high numbers and spreading on their own. These insects do best in areas with warm, dry summer climates.
It is too early to know the impact of these natural enemies on yellow starthistle in California. It will likely take a long time to achieve effective biological control. The insects become more numerous and thus more available with each succeeding year. The most recent releases, Eustenopus villosus and Chaetorellia succinea, have proven to be the most effective agents for yellow starthistle seed suppression. These insects are becoming more widespread throughout the state. Land owners and managers with yellow starthistle problems may contact their County Department of Agriculture about obtaining these biological control insects.
These biocontrol agents reduce seed production, slowing spread of the weed. Biocontrol of established populations is uncertain until impact data are available, but even if successful, biological control requires years to achieve. It is possible that a combination of herbicides and biocontrol will provide more sustainable control than either technique used alone.
Cultural Control Yellow starthistle begins emergence with fall rains and continues to germinate throughout the rainy season. A single cultivation effectively controls seedlings and rosettes of yellow starthistle after the rainy season when soils are dry. This treatment must be made before seeds are produced. In contrast, if cultivations are made during spring, repeated treatments are needed to control each new flush of seedlings.
Mowing can be used to manage yellow starthistle, provided it is well-timed and used on plants with a high branching pattern. Mowing early growth stages results in increased light penetration and rapid regrowth of the weed. If plants branch from near the base, regrowth will occur from recovering branches. Repeated mowing of plants too early in its life cycle (rosette or bolting stages) or when branches are below the mowing height will not prevent seed production, as flowers will develop below the mower cutting height. Plants with a high branching pattern are easier to control, as recovery will be greatly reduced. Even plants with this growth pattern must be mowed in the late spiny or early flowering stage to be successful. An additional mowing may be necessary in some cases.
To encourage growth of desirable vegetation, let these species set seed before mowing, but be sure to mow well before starthistle is in full flower. In general, mowing is most effective when soil moisture is low and no irrigation or rainfall follows mowing.
Grazing is effective in reducing yellow starthistle seed production. Sheep, goats, or cattle eat yellow starthistle before spines form on the plant. Goats will eat starthistle even in the spiny stage. The plant's crude protein concentration is variable but ranges from 28% at the rosette stage down to 11% at the bud stage, and should be sufficient to meet the general maintenance requirements for most ruminants. Yellow starthistle appears to have the ability to sustain animals several weeks beyond annual grass "dry down" when it is abundant. Intensive grazing in late May and June using large numbers of animals for short duration can reduce plant height, canopy size, and seed production. Avoid overgrazing, however; do not allow more than half the grass forage to be removed. Grazing more than this will reduce the grasses' recovery rate and ability to shade out yellow starthistle.
Burning is best performed at the end of the rainy season when flowers first appear. Yellow starthistle should be green at this time and will require desiccated vegetation to burn. Most annual vegetation other than yellow starthistle, particularly grasses, should have dried and shed their seeds by this time. The foliage of these plants serves as a fuel source to allow a more complete burn. Burning for 2 or more consecutive years helps suppress yellow starthistle and deplete the soil seedbank. Burning can also increase the recovery and density of perennial grasses. Do not burn areas where insects have been released for biological control because fire will kill them.
Revegetation Control practices are capable of reducing yellow starthistle populations, but in the absence of competition, starthistle will reestablish. Effective management requires that desirable plant species be encouraged or planted and managed to prevent yellow starthistle germination or growth. Species choice for revegetation will depend on the intended use of that site. Resident vegetation such as perennial bunchgrasses or wildflowers may be desirable along roadsides, abandoned pastures, or in rangelands and wildlands. In these situations, cultural, biological, or chemical methods can be used to reduce yellow starthistle while encouraging other plant species, if possible, with practices such as fertilization. Research efforts to reestablish native or introduced perennial bunchgrasses are in progress. Perennial grasses are slow to establish and may require herbicide treatments to assist yellow starthistle or annual grass control during establishment, but once well established, alternative controls such as properly timed grazing, mowing, or burning can be used effectively.
In pastures, eliminate dense stands of yellow starthistle and reseed the area with a fast-growing, competitive forage species. Although annual legumes work well for this purpose, the lack of selective herbicides makes follow-up treatments difficult. Therefore, grasses are best because selective herbicides can then be used to control yellow starthistle plants not eliminated by grass competition. In areas with scattered yellow starthistle infestations, eliminate scattered plants and overseed with a desirable species to provide enough competition to prevent yellow starthistle from reestablishing.
In all instances, choose desirable species that are well adapted to the site and not likely to become invasive themselves. Species that grow well are the best competitors.
Chemical Control Both postemergent and preemergent herbicides are available to control starthistle along roadsides, rights-of-way, and noncrop areas. Most herbicides registered for use in rangeland and pastures are only active postemergence. Clopyralid, however, has both preemergence and postemergence activity on yellow starthistle.
Postemergent Herbicides: Postemergent herbicide treatments generally work best on seedlings. The long germination period of yellow starthistle makes control with a single application almost impossible. A treatment following the first flush of seedlings opens a site up for later flushes. Waiting until later in the rainy season to apply a postemergent herbicide allows a greater number of seedlings to be treated, but larger plants will require higher herbicide rates and may not be controlled.
- Clopyralid is a newly registered growth regulator herbicide for use in noncrop areas, including rangeland and pastures. Unlike the other growth regulator herbicides, it is very effective on yellow starthistle both postemergence and preemergence. The most effective timing for application is from January to February, when yellow starthistle is in the early rosette stage. Applications earlier may not provide full-season control and later applications will require higher rates. A single application at the recommended time will provide season-long control. Clopyralid is effective at rates as low as 1.5 oz a.e./acre. It is selective on many members of the sunflower family, particularly thistles, but can also injure legumes, including clovers. Most other broadleaf species and all grasses are not injured by clopyralid. There are no grazing restrictions after clopyralid use in rangelands. Clopyralid is also effective on plants in the bolting and early spiny stage, but higher rates (4 oz a.e./acre) are required. While not registered for use around the home, clopyralid does have registration for use in pastures, rangelands, rights-of-way, roadsides, and other noncrop areas.
- 2,4-D can provide acceptable control of yellow starthistle if it is applied at the proper rate and time. Treatment in the rosette growth stage provides better control than later applications. Amine formulations are as effective as ester formulations at the small rosette growth stage, and amine formulations reduce the chance of off-target movement.
Application rates of 0.5 to 0.75 lb a.i./acre will control small rosettes. Applications made later in the season, when rosettes are larger or after bolting has been initiated, require a higher application rate (1 to 2 lb a.i./acre) to achieve equivalent control. 2,4-D is a growth regulator and a selective herbicide that controls many other broadleaf plants, but has minimal effect on clovers and generally does not harm grasses. It has little, if any, soil activity. Drift from 2,4-D applications is common, particularly from ester formulations. Use caution when applying near sensitive vegetation or during windy or high temperature conditions. Certain formulations of 2,4-D require a restricted materials permit; generally formulations that are sold in small quantities (i.e., liquid formulations that do not exceed 1 quart and dry formulations that do not exceed 1 pound) do not require a permit.
- Dicamba is very effective at controlling yellow starthistle at rates as low as 0.25 lb a.i./acre. When yellow starthistle rosettes are small, about 1 to 1.5 inches across, the 0.25 lb a.i./acre rate works well, but higher rates (0.5 to 0.75 lb a.i./acre) are needed if plants are larger. Applications made in late rosette to early bolting stages have provided excellent control, although earlier treatments are better.
Dicamba is also a growth regulator and selective herbicide that controls many broadleaf plants, including clovers, but does not harm grasses. Its soil activity is very short. Like 2,4-D, it is available as both an amine and as an ester formulation. Drift from dicamba applications is common, especially from the ester formulation. Use caution when applying near sensitive vegetation. Certain formulations of dicamba require a restricted materials permit; generally formulations that are sold in small quantities (i.e., liquid formulations that do not exceed 1 quart and dry formulations that do not exceed 1 pound) do not require a permit.
- Triclopyr at 0.5 lb a.i./acre provides complete control of yellow starthistle seedlings. Larger plants require rates up to 1.5 lb a.i./acre. Like 2,4-D and dicamba, triclopyr is a growth regulator herbicide with little or no residual activity. It is foliar-absorbed and active on broadleaf species, including clovers, but typically does not harm grasses. Triclopyr is formulated as both an amine and ester. The ester formulation is more sensitive to drift than the amine form. Caution should be observed when using the ester formulation. This material is registered for use around the home as well as for pastures, rangelands, rights-of-way, roadsides, and other noncrop areas.
- Glyphosate controls yellow starthistle at 1 lb a.i./acre. Good coverage, clean water, and actively growing yellow starthistle plants are all essential for adequate control. Unlike growth regulator herbicides, glyphosate is nonselective and controls most plants, including grasses. It has no soil activity. A 1% solution of glyphosate also provides effective control and is used at this concentration for spot treatment of small patches. An application of glyphosate is a very effective method of controlling starthistle plants in the bolting, spiny, and early flowering stages at 1 to 2 lb a.i./acre. However, glyphosate will severely damage desirable perennial grasses if they are sprayed as well. Glyphosate is registered for use around the home as well as for pastures, rangelands, rights-of-way, roadsides, and other noncrop areas.
Preemergent Herbicides: Preemergent herbicides must be applied before seeds germinate to be effective. The long germination period of yellow starthistle requires that a preemergent material have a lengthy residual activity. Make applications before a rainfall, which will move the material into the soil. Because these materials adhere to soil particles, off-site movement and possible injury of susceptible plants could occur if the soil is dry and wind occurs before rain. When yellow starthistle plants have already emerged, it is possible to combine a postemergent herbicide (to control emerged plants) with a preemergent herbicide (to provide residual control of any subsequent germination) for an effective control strategy.
Chlorsulfuron and sulfometuron are preemergent herbicides that are registered for roadside and other noncrop uses. They are very effective at controlling yellow starthistle when applied at 1 to 2 oz a.i./acre. Little postemergence activity occurs on yellow starthistle with these two compounds. Best control is achieved when applications are made before weeds emerge. They may not be used in pastures, rangeland, or around the home.
WARNING ON THE USE OF CHEMICALS
Publication Information
Pest Notes: Yellow Starthistle UC ANR Publication 7402 PDF to Print
Authors: Joseph M. DiTomaso, Vegetable Crops/Weed Science, UC Davis; W. Thomas Lanini, Vegetable Crops/Weed Science, UC Davis; Craig D. Thomsen, Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis; Timothy S. Prather, UC IPM Program/Kearney Agricultural Center, Parlier; Charles E. Turner, USDA, Albany, CA; Michael J. Smith, UC Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo Co.; Clyde L. Elmore, Vegetable Crops/Weed Science, UC Davis; Marc P. Vayssieres, Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis; and William A. Williams, Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis. Editor: B. Ohlendorf Technical Editor: M. L. Flint Produced by IPM Education and Publications, University of California Statewide IPM Program
| New Pest | Home | Help Desk | Search | About | Manage Pests | Pesticides | Resources | Funded Projects | What's New? |
All contents copyright © 2002 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. For noncommercial purposes only, any Web site may link directly to this page or photo file. FOR ALL OTHER USES or more information, read Legal Notices. Unfortunately, we cannot provide individual solutions to specific pest problems. See Manage Pests, or in the U.S., contact your local Cooperative Extension office for assistance. Statewide IPM Program, University of California. /PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7402.html revised: June 27, 2002. Webmaster: ipmig@ucdavis.edu
POSTed Parks & Open Space Trust enviro-database The POST & MROSD Coastal Annexation Hidden Agenda?
POSTed Resource Links
· California Watershed Posse (CWP) 21st Century Mission Statement
· Sierra Club Regional Group 1971 Coastal Rural Lands Vision
· Nature’s Landlord, World’s Most Powerful Enviro-Group Exposed
· Nature Conservancy, Washington Post’s Insightful “Green” Series
· Undue Influence, Ron Arnold
· Rural Battered Communities Testimony
· 5th Column Versus Us
· The Real “Monsters of the Coastal Rural Lands”
· The Sierra Club $300 Billion Dollar Tunnels Boondoggle
· Think Tunnels: Sooner, Safer, Cheaper….Never!!!
· Devil’s Slide Tunnels Notice of Violation : Endangered Species Act
· Save Devil’s Slide Highway Funding Letter, Sec. Norman Mineta
· Devil’s Slide Declared “No Substantial Issues” by CCC
· CCC, CGF & Sierra Club “Tunnels Mitigation Scheme” Kills Fed Funding
· "Pay to Play" Gov. Davis & Unconstitutional CCC
· Sierra Club & Gov. Davis Hetch Hetchy Hidden Agenda
· No RICO Government For Us
· Parks & Open Space Environmental Data (POSTed)
· EPA, U.S. Attorney, IRS, RICO Referral October 2001
· CGF & BOS Retaliate and Order Abatement of Rural Land Families
· SOB Supports Raymond Levine Rural Lands Home Project
· Final Notice of Violation BOS Jerry Hill re: POST Landfill et all.
· War Declared on Open Space off-roaders
· Golden Gate National Recreation Area Reactive Maintenance Report
· Cutting Green Tape: Toxic Pollutants, Environmental Regulations & Law
· Wise Use Versus "Smart Growth" Essay
· San Mateo Agricultural Summit Keynote Presentation, Steve Oku
· Why the Peninsula Agriculture lands keeps disappearing!
· Sign the “No MROSD Coastal Annexation Petition”
· Ron Sturgeon Comments re: MROSD EIR
· La Honda-Pescadero School District Comments re: MROSD Draft EIR
· San Mateo County Association of Realtors Comments MROSD Draft EIR
· La Honda Fire Brigade Inc. Comments regarding MROSD Draft EIR
· Mary Clayton, Co-chair Coastal Family Alliance re: MROSD annexation
· Carol Simon, Comments re: MROSD Draft EIR
· Petrea Hamor, Comments re: MROSD Draft EIR
· No MROSD Annexation Op/Ed Letter by Deborah Ettinger
· Anti-MROSD Annexation Op/Ed Letter by Susan True
· Andy Braun, Comments & Questions re: MROSD Draft EIR
· Oscar Braun, July 2002, Comments & Question MROSD Draft EIR
· John Donovan, Consensus re: Butano Creek Enhancement Project
· CWP Fire Safe Council Offers Sponsorship for Butano Creek Project
· CWP Fire Safe & CRMP Council Follow-up letter to PMAC
· Just Ask Your Neighbor About the San Mateo County RCD.
· CWP Water Quality Testing Studies
· CWP Proposed Confined Animal Ordinance
· CWP Opposes Access into SFPUC Watershed Sensitive Habitat Areas
· Fire Prevention Grant Proposal: Ambient FireAlert Sentinel System
· Fire Prevention Grant Proposal: S.F. Peninsula Regional EIR Template
· LAFCo Regulations
· San Mateo County 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
· California Coastal Act
· San Mateo County General Plan
· San Mateo County Local Coastal Plan
· San Mateo County Environmental Services, Documents, Maps & Figures
· 1994 San Francisco Public Opinion on Watershed Management Issues
· California Watershed Posse Water Quality Protection Program
· California Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan
· Council on Environmental Quality
· The Wildland Project
· Healthy Forest Initiative
· CWP San Francisco Peninsula Watershed Security Plan 2001
· California CRMP Council A Local Approach
· California Watershed Posse (CWP) CRMP Council Services
· California Watershed Posse Fire Safe Council
· California Fire Plan
· CDF Monitoring Study Group Monitoring Program
· Environmental Justice Presidential Order
· National Invasive Species Management Plan
· Endangered Species Act
· Clean Water Act
· Ecosystems Management , Techniques and Implementation
· Creative Solutions in Regional Conservation Planning by E & P System
· Ambient Control Sentinel Systems
· Study of Wildland Fire Suppression Cost
· Meeting the challenges of Homeland Security in the SF Bay Area
...
|