You are here

Wine And Water Watch

Subscribe to Wine And Water Watch feed
Protecting our Environmental Resources
Updated: 20 hours 30 min ago

South East Greenway Update, bike and pedestrian plan

Tue, 10/30/2018 - 08:49
City of Santa Rosa
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update
Community Open House
Thursday, November 8
6:00 – 8:00 pm
Finley Community Center
Person Senior Wing
2060 W College Ave, Santa Rosa

The City will present the Draft Plan Update for review and feedback. They will discuss policy, program and project recommendations and review their project prioritization and implementation strategy. The Plan will guide the development of the Greenway’s paths for bikes and walkers and how they connect to the community.
The Plan Update 2018 is a critical tool in building a citywide trans- portation system that is bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The goal of the Plan Update is to encou- rage residents to bike and walk and to make Santa Rosa a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly city.
Please attend this third and final Community Open House!

 

SE Greenway supports:

Vote Yes on Measure M

If you love our outdoor spaces in Sonoma County, be sure to vote YES on Measure M in the November election. Measure M is a modest 1/8 of a cent sales tax that will generate 11.5 million annually for our county and city parks. That’s 3 cents on every $25 purchase. Measure M funds will be used to fix and maintain important parks infrastructure while allowing for new trails and park features like the Santa Rosa Southeast Greenway. If passed with two-thirds of the vote countywide, Measure M would be in effect for 10 years.

Categories: G2. Local Greens

Opinion: Healdsburg Council Race

Tue, 10/30/2018 - 08:24
Opinion: Healdsburg Council Race

Healdsburg City Council ballot:

The direction Healdsburg takes regarding housing, hotels and a wine-based tourism economy will be determined at the polls where 3 candidates for city council are running for 2 seats.

Retiring mayor Brigette Mansell has consistently supported policy that reflects the views of the majority of residents. Leah Gold was elected to fill the remaining 18 months of Eric Ziedrich’s seat in June 2017; she is running as an incumbent for a new 4-year term; she is generally considered a shoo-in. 

  Gold and Mansell have been mostly aligned, but the council majority often leans in favor of approving policy that favors tourism growth and high-end development—it is generally accepted that these agendas promote gentrification: attract 2nd home buyers, help to escalate home prices and hollow out neighborhoods; and don’t reduce auto or air travel GHG pollution. 

First time candidate, Evelyn Mitchell, is supported by Chamber of Commerce, Sonoma County Alliance, North Bay Assoc. of Realtors, North Coast Builders Exchange, N. Calif. Engineering Contractors Assoc., 6 former mayors (including Mike McGuire) and the largest local lumber, developers, builders and real estate companies. 

(Red Flag) At the candidates forum Mitchell spoke in favor of the controversial Replay Resorts hotel and condo proposed development downtown but has since expressed less supportive views.

  Ms. Mitchell has a management consulting business and was Board President of the Humane Society. Her stated goals include “balancing the  needs of tourists and locals” and “supporting local businesses and economic climate.” All 3 candidates support increasing affordable housing. Measure P, if it passes, will exempt the building of 50 multifamily rentals for the missing middle income category from the existing Growth Management Ordinance. Tim Meinken is running to represent the interests of the residents and local workers (“Residents First”) and is aligned with Leah Gold; both favor limiting hotel development, especially in the downtown core and a diverse economy. Meinken will focus on transit-oriented solutions, well-managed growth that benefits residents, forming a Latino commission, protecting our small-town “charm,” creating neighborhoods, not developments. He advocates taking advantage of city-owned, shovel-ready parcels to build affordable housing ASAP.   Mr. Meinken has an MBA in finance and transportation and is a former pension and benefits consultant. He and his wife, Anne Gere, own and run a small local winery that specializes in sustainably grown grapes. He was part of the committee that brought the American Institute of Architects to Healdsburg with the Sustainable Design Assessment Team in August and favors the master planning suggested by the AIA that elevates residents contributions in the planning process.    Meinken got a late start on his campaign due to an intense involvement in the SDAT this summer. Among his supporters are the Sonoma County Democratic Party, Sierra Club, Sonoma County Conservation Action, North Bay Labor Council, IBEW 1245—HBG City Employees, Healdsburg Citizens for Sustainable Solutions, GIMBY (Granny In My Back Yard), and HBG Citizens for Responsible Growth, Leah Gold and a growing grassroots. Mitchell who began campaigning last spring has outspent Meinken 3 or 4 to 1.

<p class=”noscript”>This app uses JavaScript. Your browser either doesn’t support JavaScript or you have it turned off. To use this app please use a JavaScript enabled browser.</p>

The Trump administration is reportedly following industry “scripts” in rolling back oil and gas drilling restrictions

Mon, 10/29/2018 - 09:54
Climate change denier in chief….. The Trump administration is reportedly following industry “scripts” in rolling back oil and gas drilling restrictions It’s loosening environmental regulations to auction off huge amounts of land for drilling. By Emily Stewart Oct 28, 2018, 12:20pm EDT A fracking site in Midland, Texas in 2016.Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Trump administration has leased out three times more federally controlled oil and gas land for drilling in the last year than the Obama administration averaged annually during its second term, in part by following scripts for environmental protection rollbacks laid out by the oil and gas industry.

Eric Lipton and Hiroko Tabuchi at the New York Times reported over the weekend about the lengths the federal government under President Donald Trump has gone to in order to make drilling and fracking easier for oil and gas developers. It’s offering up thousands of drilling permits and parcels of land to companies such as Chesapeake Energy and Chevron. More than 12.8 million acres were offered during the last fiscal year ending in September, a huge jump from previous years.

Here’s how they’re doing it: Regulators are weakening protections for wildlife, air quality, and groundwater supplies, often by following what the Times describes as “detailed industry scripts” for rollbacks.

The Interior Department under Secretary Ryan Zinke has offered so much land in auctions that most haven’t had any bidders at all. The department last year sent out a memorandum to field offices telling them to “alleviate unnecessary impediments and burdens” and to “expedite the offering of lands for lease.” In other words, to make leases for drilling easier and faster to get.

The changes have been lucrative: According to the Times, Wyoming got $669 million from federal oil, gas, and coal sales last year, and New Mexico got $1 billion in bids.

But they have also come at a cost. The Trump administration watered down Obama-era rules meant to curb methane flaring or venting, which according to the Times is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Energy companies are now flaring and venting methane at much higher rates than just two years ago.

A call for bids announced in August, which drew interest from 116 companies, included land where deer migrate and birds mate, protesters to the call said, according to the Times. They also said drilling on that land would increase air pollution and ozone levels in Wyoming and could deplete groundwater supplies. State government officials from Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado have also pushed back on the federal government’s moves.

A spokeswoman for the Interior Department told the Times that the agency has taken steps to limit the impact of drilling.

The oil and gas industry seems to be dictating a lot of what’s happening

Trump has promised to foster “American energy dominance” and has put emphasis on reviving the United States’ coal, gas, and oil industries. He’s largely brushed aside concerns about climate change and the potential effects of fossil fuels, as recently as this month telling Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that while he doesn’t think climate change is a “hoax,” it will probably just change back again.

He also said global warming is not manmade, despite significant scientific evidence otherwise, including from his own administration. “You’d have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda,” he said.

Given that inclination, it’s perhaps not surprising — but still disturbing — how easily the Trump administration appears to be swayed by oil and gas industry executives and lobbyists.

The Times report describes how a pair of oil and gas industry lobbyists and a ConocoPhillips executive reached out to the Interior Department about Obama-era rules regarding the mating grounds used by the sage grouse, a species of bird. Those regulations said that drilling could not take place within 3.1 miles of where the male birds gather for mating season:

[Samantha McDonald, a lobbyist for the Independent Petroleum Association of America] followed up the next month, asking Timothy Williams, a senior official at the Interior Department, if the bureau had “been able to resolve this map discrepancy in Wyoming yet?” Two minutes later, he responded, “We are working on it. I have let the secretary know as well.”

FULL STORY HERE

 

Unsustainable: Billionaires Made More Money in 2017 Than Any Other Year in History

Mon, 10/29/2018 - 09:42
Pillaging the earth for $…..Definition sociopath: a personality disorder characterized by a lack of social responsibility and failure to adapt to ethical and social standards of the community. Billionaires Made More Money in 2017 Than Any Other Year in History

Maselkoo99; EDITED: LW / TO

Share During a year in which so much of the world faced deep poverty, the corrosive effects of austerity, and extreme weather caused by the worsening human-caused climate crisis — from devastating hurricanes to deadly wildfires and floods — one class of individuals raked in more money in 2017 than any other year in recorded history: the world’s billionaires.

According to the Swiss bank UBS’s fifth annual billionaires report published on Friday, billionaires across the globe increased their wealth by $1.4 trillion last year — an astonishing 20 percent — bringing their combined wealth to an astonishing $8.9 trillion.

“The past 30 years have seen far greater wealth creation than the Gilded Age,” the UBS report notes. “That period bred generations of families in the US and Europe who went on to influence business, banking, politics, philanthropy, and the arts for more than 100 years.”

UBS estimates that the world now has a total of 2,158 billionaires, with 179 billionaires created last year. The United States alone is home to 585 billionaires — the most in the world — up from 563 in 2017.

Meanwhile, according to a June report by UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights Philip Alston, 18.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty and “5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty.”

World’s greedy billionaires became 20% richer in 2017 while the rest of the world burned https://t.co/yEW0wHF2bx

— Domenicodimaro97 (@Domenicodmaro97) October 26, 2018

A significant percentage of the “newly created” billionaires are hardly the self-made men — and they are overwhelmingly men — of popular lore. According to UBS, 40 of the 179 new billionaires created last year inherited their wealth — a trend that has driven an explosion of wealth inequality over the past several decades.

According to UBS, this trend will continue to accelerate over the next 20 years, given that there are currently 701 billionaires over the age of 70.

“A major wealth transition has begun. Over the past five years (2012–2017), the sum passed by deceased billionaires to beneficiaries has grown by an average of 17 percent each year,” the UBS report concludes. “Over the next two decades we expect a wealth transition of $3.4 trillion worldwide — almost 40 percent of current total billionaire wealth.”

Psssttt! While you’re here we need your help.

Since Donald Trump took office, progressive journalism has been under constant attack and companies like Facebook and Google have changed their policies to limit your access to sites like Truthout.

The result is that our articles are reaching fewer people at a time when we need genuinely independent news more than ever.

Here’s how you can help: Since Truthout doesn’t run ads or take corporate or government money, we rely on our readers for support.

By making a monthly or one-time donation of any amount, you’ll help us publish and distribute stories that have a real impact on people’s lives.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license

Rallies Planned for Cities Nationwide to Back Climate Youth Battling Trump in #TrialoftheCentury

Mon, 10/29/2018 - 09:27
As our government scrubs climate change and scientific documents...  “On October 29th,” the group added, the young people “will march into court—with America standing behind them—to demand a science-based National Climate Recovery Plan: a plan that would end the reign of fossil fuels and require the United States government to do its part to address dangerous climate change for young people and all future generations.” Rallies Planned for Cities Nationwide to Back Climate Youth Battling Trump in #TrialoftheCentury

“All of us have a responsibility to double down in supporting the young people holding the U.S. government responsible for perpetuating climate change and threatening our collective future.”

by Julia Conley, staff writer

Supporters of 21 children Supporters of 21 children and young adults who are suing the federal government for its failure to protect their generation from the climate crisis are planning to rally in towns and cities across the country on Sunday. (Photo: @youthvgov/Twitter)

Supporters of 21 children and young adults who are suing the federal government will gather in cities and towns across the U.S. in the coming days to urge the justice system to hear the plaintiffs’ case.

The plaintiffs in the landmark climate case Juliana vs. the U.S. were planning to bring their case to trial this coming Monday, October 29, after fighting in the courts for three years in order to hold the government accountable for its failure to protect their generation from the climate crisis.

The U.S. Supreme Court took the highly unusual step of issuing a stay on the case at the request of the government—which argued the cost of litigation would be burdensome.

“As the administration pulls out every attempt to delay, deceive, and distract us from what’s being considered the trial of the century, it makes you wonder just what they’re hiding.” —Thanu Yakupitiyage, 350.org “This lawsuit could change everything, but the federal administration continues to try and silence these courageous youth,” said Thanu Yakupitiyage, communications manager for 350.org. “All of us have a responsibility to double down in supporting the young people holding the U.S. government responsible for perpetuating climate change and threatening our collective future.”

In response, the young plaintiffs, who are represented by Our Children’s Trust, quickly pulled together a 103-page brief “in hopes of receiving a decision from the Chief Justice before the week’s end.”

The rallies will be held on Sunday and Monday in cities including Eugene, Oregon, where the trial was scheduled to begin in a U.S. District Court; Washington, D.C.; and New York, with supporters demanding the case be allowed to move forward. A map showing the locations of the events in nearly every state in the nation is available here.

The 21 Juliana v. US youth plaintiffs are suing the federal government for violating their constitutional rights by causing #climatechange. The government continues to try to silence them. Stand in solidarity with these climate heroes on Monday: https://t.co/g2BOsGT4a3 #youthvgov pic.twitter.com/48gym7vyYl

— Our Children’s Trust (@youthvgov) October 23, 2018

“As the administration pulls out every attempt to delay, deceive, and distract us from what’s being considered the trial of the century, it makes you wonder just what they’re hiding,” said Yakupitiyage. “That’s why thousands of people will rally across the country, demanding these youth voices are heard and that the government act in accordance with our constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.”

The plaintiffs “allege that the U.S. government has knowingly violated their constitutional rights for over 50 years by causing and contributing to climate change,” said Our Children’s Trust in a call to action.

“On October 29th,” the group added, the young people “will march into court—with America standing behind them—to demand a science-based National Climate Recovery Plan: a plan that would end the reign of fossil fuels and require the United States government to do its part to address dangerous climate change for young people and all future generations.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don’t survive on clicks. We don’t want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can’t do it alone. It doesn’t work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Won’t Exist.

$15 $27$50 $100Other Share This Article

Related Articles In ‘Historic Moment’ for Climate Action, Wales Pledges to Leave Its Remaining Coal in the Ground #WontBeErased: Massive Rally Outside White House to Counter Trump’s ‘Sick, Cynical’ Attempt to Deny Trans People’s Existence More in: Climate, U.S. , Environment, People Power, Civil Disobedience, Children, Fossil Fuels, Pollution Top Comments (Click to see more comments or to join the conversation)

Indivisible Sonoma County: Get out the vote!

Mon, 10/29/2018 - 09:18
Want to help get out the vote in upcoming election? Indivisible Sonoma County: Get out the vote!    

Indivisible Sonoma County mobilizes and organizes people locally by connecting them with the political processes to fight for equality and justice. Inspired by Indivisible.org, we rally to resist the Trump agenda — an agenda based on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption. We object loudly and powerfully to ensure that people in Sonoma County understand how damaging the Trump agenda is from the start.

Voting Guides to Explore

  1. Vote Climate U.S. PAC has released a national climate change voter’s guide. Polls show that American voters want action on climate change. This voter’s guide calculates a climate score for every incumbent and challenger for the U.S. House and us, quickly highlighting their climate action history and position. It provides an easy to read side-by-side assessment of both incumbents and challengers. It’s a thorough scoring system for incumbents that includes votes, positions,, leadership, and putting a fee on carbon. Challengers are rated on position and putting a fee on carbon.
  2. Climate Hawks’ Endorsements
  3. CA League of Conservation Voters Voting Guide

LA TIMES: Organic food linked to less cancer

Mon, 10/29/2018 - 09:13
Pounds of pesticides in 2015 that Sonoma County winegrape growers used: 2,839,007 pounds. Organic and biodynamic acreage down to under 2% with the “Sustainable Sonoma ” campaign that allows some of the worlds worst chemicals to be used. Great PR, bad for consumers. Organic food linked to less cancer A French study finds a connection it says is significant enough to warrant another look. A STUDY of nearly 70,000 adults found that those who ate the most organic foods were less likely to develop some cancers; researchers think pesticides are the key. (Georges Gobet AFP/Getty Images) By Karen Kaplan To reduce your risk of cancer , you know you should quit smoking, exercise regularly, wear sunscreen and take advantage of screening tests. New research suggests another item might be added to this list: Choose organic foods over conventional ones. A study of nearly 70,000 French adults who were tracked for an average of 4.5 years found that those who ate the most organic foods were less likely to develop certain kinds of cancer than the people who ate the least.Because of the way the study was conducted, it is impossible to say that the organic foods people ate were the reason they had fewer cases of cancer. But the results are significant enough to warrant follow-up studies, the researchers wrote. “Further research is required to identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk,” they wrote Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. The researchers have an idea about what factors those may be: pesticides. At least three of them — glyphosate, malathion and diazinon — probably cause cancer , and others may be carcinogenic as well, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer. “Organic products are less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional foods,” they wrote. That’s because the rules farmers must follow to use the organic label generally prohibit synthetic pesticides (although pesticides based on natural compounds such as hydrogen peroxide and soaps are allowed ). Previous studies have found pesticide residue is more prevalent on conventionally grown produce than on its organic counterparts. For instance, a report this year from the European Food Safety Authority found residue from one or more pesticides on 44% of the conventionally produced food samples that were tested. Meanwhile, 6.5% of the organic samples tested had detectable pesticide residues. And there’s evidence that those pesticides are metabolized in the body . The urine of people who eat few (if any) organic foods contains higher concentrations of chemicals derived from pesticides than the urine of people who eat organic food regularly. In the U.S., more than 9 out of 10 people have measurable amounts of pesticides in their urine or their blood, and these concentrations are known to fall when people switch from conventionally produced foods to organic ones. Consuming fewer pesticide-related chemicals certainly seems like a good idea. But whether that’s associated with an actual health benefit is unclear. So a team from Inserm , the French equivalent of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, went looking for data. In an ideal world, they would recruit thousands of volunteers and randomly divide them into two groups: one that follows an organic diet and one that doesn’t. They would monitor these volunteers to make sure they were keeping to their assigned diets and observe the other things they do that could influence their cancer risk. Then, after many years, they would count up the number of cancers diagnosed in each of the groups and see if there was a difference that could be explained only by the amount of organic food they ate. But the researchers had to make do with the data that were available. They focused on people who joined a large, ongoing health and nutrition study starting in 2009. They were questioned about 16 categories of foods — including fruits, vegetables, eggs and wine — and how often they ate organic versions of them. Once a year, they provided health updates, including whether they had been diagnosed with cancer. By the end of 2016, there were 68,946 French adults who were included in the analysis. Their average age when they joined the study was 44, and 78% of them were women. Between 2009 and 2016, cancer was diagnosed in 1,340 of the volunteers. The most common type was breast cancer (459 cases), followed by prostate cancer (180 cases), skin cancer (135 cases), colorectal cancer (99 cases), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (47 cases) and other types of lymphomas (15 cases). The study authors ranked the volunteers according to how frequently they ate organic foods and divided them into four equally sized groups. This revealed that the people who ate organic food most often had higher incomes, more education and higher-status jobs. They were also more likely to exercise, to have quit smoking, and to eat higher amounts of healthful foods such as fruits and vegetables. All of these things are associated with a lower risk of cancer. After the authors took these and other demographic factors into account, they found that the people who ate organic food most frequently were 25% less likely to develop any kind of cancer than the people who ate organic food the least. The overall effect of choosing lots of organic foods was similar in magnitude to having a family history of cancer. When they considered each type of cancer separately, they found that only three had a statistically significant association with organic food consumption.  One of them was postmenopausal breast cancer: The women who ate organic foods most often were 34% less likely to receive this diagnosis than women who ate organic foods the least. (There were hints of reduced risk for premenopausal breast cancers as well, but the difference could have been due to chance.) Another was non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: The most frequent eaters of organic foods were 86% less likely to get this form of cancer than their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum. The difference between the two groups was just barely big enough to be statistically significant. The last category was all lymphomas: People who ate organic food most often were 76% less likely to get cancers of the lymph system than people who ate organic foods the least. Some of these findings were in line with past studies, and some were not. In particular, the French researchers compared their results with data from the Million Women Study in the United Kingdom, in which participants who ate organic food regularly had a 21% lower risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma than participants who didn’t eat organic food at all. However, there was no reduction in overall cancer risk, and the risk of breast cancer was slightly higher among women who ate organic food routinely than it was for women who didn’t eat it at all. “It now seems important to evaluate chronic effects of low-dose pesticide residue exposure from the diet,” the French researchers concluded. A team from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health noted several strengths of the new report in a commentary that was also published Monday. Glyphosate , malathion and diazinon have all been associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, so the researchers may be on to something, the Harvard authors wrote. They also praised the study for including tens of thousands of people and following them prospectively instead of retrospectively. But there are also several shortcomings that limit the strength of the study’s results, they added. For instance, no attempt was made to confirm people’s claims about the amount of organic food they ate. The French researchers also assumed that the more organic foods a person ate, the lower their exposure to pesticide residue would be. This may be true, but there are no data to back it up. “At the current stage of research, the relationship between organic food consumption and cancer risk is still unclear,” the Harvard researchers wrote. What’s “urgently” needed is a more detailed study, according to the commentary. “If future studies provide more solid evidence supporting the consumption of organic foods for cancer prevention, measures to lower costs and ensure equitable access to organic products will be crucial,” the Harvard authors wrote. karen.kaplan@latimes.com

Pies for Poverty, making the world a better place……..

Sun, 10/28/2018 - 11:20
Press Democrat News we all love: thank you Chris Smith!

KATI’S PIES NOURISH — twice.

This is year eight that Kati Hilario of Santa Rosa and a kitchen-load of helpers will bake pumpkin pies for Thanksgiving, sell them for $15 each and donate the proceeds to the Redwood Empire Food Bank.

Kati could have passed this year. Having founded Pies for Poverty at age 12, she’s now 19 and plenty busy as a sophomore at Sacramento State.

But she says she’s determined to raise a lot of money for the food bank as it toils to meet the increased demand created by the disastrous fires.

Since 2011, Kati has baked 1,112 pies and donated $19,718 to the REFB. Kati invites us to order a pie or two for ourselves, and another one or two that she will present to first responders. You can pick up your pie or pies at the food bank, or Kati and company will deliver them. To order or to learn more, email Kati at piesforpoverty@outlook.com.

The deadline to order is Nov. 17. You can reach Staff Writer Chris Smith at 707-521-5211 and chris.smith@pressdemocrat.com.

CHRIS SMITH

Trial of the Century Monday October 29th, Federal Building

Sun, 10/28/2018 - 11:11

Want to support our youth who will inherit the planet?

Join us for a rally at the federal courthouse to be a part of the #TrialoftheCentury and support the young plaintiffs in the historic Juliana v. United States court case. Our freedom depends on a climate system that will sustain human life. Let’s show the government that it has a duty to prepare and implement a Climate Recovery Plan to protect our basic and most fundamental rights!

Federal Building, near Federal Courthouse, northwest corner of Sonoma Ave. and E Street•777 Sonoma Ave , Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Can you join me? Click here for details and to RSVP: https://actionnetwork.org/events/trial-of-the-century-we-support-youth?source=email&

Also, there is a Climate meeting at 7 pm nearby that you are also invited to.

SONOMA COUNTY CLIMATE ACTIVIST NETWORK – SoCo CAN!

Monday, October 29, 7-9 PM

Peace & Justice Center, 467 Sebastopol Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Climate activist groups and individuals working together to address and reverse climate change. We meet on months with a 5th Monday, 7-9 PM at the Peace & Justice Center, 467 Sebastopol Ave., Santa Rosa 95401.

more  •  facebook  •  map  •

Thanks!

Warmly, Roni Here’s a link to a video from a recent DRAWDOWN Event: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ks506RDP1BaTr6KmTbhLZC-x0D6dqbdd/view a shorter version, < 2 minutes, it plays fine in explorer is at www.RoniJacobi.com We will be having more DRAWDOWN gatherings, stay tuned, and please email if you want to help! Candidate for State Senate District 2
www.RoniJacobi.com and www.OurGreenChallenge.org“Climate Change is not just another issue in this complicated world of
proliferating issues. It is the issue that, unchecked, will swamp all other issues.” 

– Ross Gelbspan in The Heat Is On “Yes We Can, Yes We Better, Never Give Up, Do It Now!”  – Veronica “Roni” Jacobi __._,_.___

Posted by: V Jacobi <vjacobi@sonic.net>

‘Disaster Waiting to Happen’ as Trump Quietly Approves Massive Oil Drilling Project in Arctic Waters Off Alaska Coast

Sun, 10/28/2018 - 11:03
SWAMP WATCH: Trump administrations scorched earth policy: leave no oil fat cats behind… ‘Disaster Waiting to Happen’ as Trump Quietly Approves Massive Oil Drilling Project in Arctic Waters Off Alaska Coast

“This project sets us down a dangerous path of destroying the Arctic. We’ll keep fighting this project and any new ones that follow.”

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

“As the Arctic warms twice as fast as the rest of the planet, it is irresponsible to permit new oil development that will only exacerbate the problem of climate change,” said Dan Ritzman, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands, Water, Wildlife Campaign. (Photo: vitstudio/Shutterstock)

Ignoring once more the existential necessity of keeping fossil fuels in the ground and transitioning to a global energy system powered by renewable sources, the Trump administration on Wednesday delivered another major victory for Big Oil by quietly approving a Texas company’s plan to drill in federal Arctic waters six miles off the coast of Alaska.

“As the Arctic warms twice as fast as the rest of the planet, it is irresponsible to permit new oil development that will only exacerbate the problem of climate change.”
—Dan Ritzman, Sierra Club

Kristen Monsell, ocean legal director with the Center for Biological Diversity, denounced the plan developed by Hilcorp Energy as a “disaster waiting to happen” and vowed to do everything possible to ensure that the project doesn’t move forward.

“This project sets us down a dangerous path of destroying the Arctic,” Monsell said in a statement after Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke approved Hilcorp’s plan. “We’ll keep fighting this project and any new ones that follow. We won’t passively watch the oil industry and this inept administration harm Arctic wildlife and leave a legacy of climate chaos.”

If completed, Hilcorp’s so-called “Liberty Project” would be the first oil and gas production facility in federal waters off Alaska and is expected to produce as many as 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day at peak production.

“As the Arctic warms twice as fast as the rest of the planet, it is irresponsible to permit new oil development that will only exacerbate the problem of climate change,” said Dan Ritzman, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands, Water, Wildlife Campaign. “Not only will expanded offshore drilling threaten our climate, the Liberty development will also threaten a unique region of the Arctic Ocean seafloor that supports a rare diversity of wildlife.”

“An oil spill in the Arctic would be impossible to clean up and the region is already stressed by climate change.”
—Kristen Monsell, Center for Biological Diversity

“Rather than pushing for new development to benefit their friends in the fossil fuel industry,” Ritzman concluded, “Ryan Zinke and the Department of the Interior should be leading the way towards a clean energy economy which would protect our climate and our oceans.”

On top of highlighting the catastrophic effects continued  oil and gas drilling will have on the climate in the very near future, environmentalists also issued dire warnings that Hilcorp’s project could also pose an immediate threat to the Arctic waters and wildlife, given the company’s well-documented history of spills and “regulatory noncompliance.”

“In December 2017, Hilcorp Alaska discovered crude oil leaking from a subsea pipeline that connected a pair of oil production platforms in the Cook Inlet,” the Washington Post reported. “Nine months before that discovery, the Coast Guard was dispatched to investigate a Hilcorp oil leak from an abandoned well head in the Gulf of Mexico. A news release by the Coast Guard reported ‘an estimated 840 gallons of crude oil in the water.'”

Monsell of the Center for Biological Diversity warned that “an oil spill in the Arctic would be impossible to clean up and the region is already stressed by climate change.” This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License COMMON DREAMS: This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don’t survive on clicks. We don’t want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can’t do it alone. It doesn’t work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Won’t Exist.

$15 $27$50 $100Other Share This Article

 

VOTE, vote, vote. Michael Moore:| “A Nonviolent, Democracy-Based Cure …….”

Sun, 10/28/2018 - 10:48

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c45b4752f1d98e3c703af704bd5a705845a9ff3dc2b0b23a5900572d651073a0.jpg

If you were thinking of doing environmental crimes, now’s the time

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 10:07
If you were thinking of doing environmental crimes, now’s the time Business has been good for you for a couple years now, and it’s only getting better. Alan PykeTwitter Oct 25, 2018, 8:12 pm

SHARE

Protesters rally against former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. New analysis shows prosecution of environmental crimes is declining. (CREDIT: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

SHARE

-->

 

It’s open season for environmental crimes in the U.S., a new report from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) suggests. Prosecutions under environmental law fell 10 percent for the 2018 fiscal year from their 2017 levels, which were themselves a substantial drop from prior years. Overall, federal prosecutions for environmental crimes are now down 40 percent from 2013 levels.

The magnitude of these prosecutions has never been particularly impressive. Even at previous highs, the feds pursued fewer than 300 cases per year in the categories tracked by the group. The 109 new environmental cases brought by federal prosecutors last fiscal year is roughly half the figure from 20 years earlier.

Prosecutors have been slackening their environmental caseloads ever since the start of President Barack Obama’s second term. But the continued dropoff TRAC found in the past two years coincides, of course, with the elevation of a crop of federal environmental officials uniquely hostile to enforcing the laws in question. Like all regulatory bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a shining target for polluting industries who profit from slacker enforcement and loosened regulation. President Donald Trump’s approach to the EPA has encouraged such “regulatory capture” by polluters. .connatix a cnx:first-child {
z-index: 0!important;
}
.cnx-hl-bottom-container {
z-index: -1!important;
}
New analysis shows sharp decline in environmental enforcement under Trump Trump’s regime and its congressional allies have sought to criminalize protest activities common to the environmentalist movement, while relaxing the government’s vigilance on public health, safety, and conservation at the EPA and the Department of Interior. It has proposed radical budget cuts for environmental protection programs and research while allowing disgraced former EPA head Scott Pruitt to spend ludicrous sums on his own security detail and creature comforts.Pruitt knew exactly what he was doing, of course. He sought to scrub his meetings with polluter industry executives from agency records prior to his resignation as internal and external investigations into his conduct piled up.

The willful sabotage of environmental regulation and enforcement at the federal level has left state officials to fill the breech. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra opened a new office within the state’s law enforcement bureaucracy to root out environmental wrongdoing, citing Pruitt and Trump’s disinterest in the work as a motivating factor.

The criminal prosecutions which TRAC follows are only one component of the federal government’s broader enforcement work on environmental wrongdoing. Civil actions have also slowed dramatically since Trump took office, with Pruitt’s team closing just 48 such cases in their first year compared to 71 civil enforcement actions in Obama’s first year and 112 in President George W. Bush’s first year.

It’s beginning to look alot like… Definition of fascism by Collins Dictionary: Fascism is a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, a powerful role for the armed forces, and the stopping of political opposition.

FULLSTORY AND COMMENTS

HELP THINK PROGRESS

Update: Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order protecting Sonoma County neighborhood against illegal Cannabis tourism

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 09:49
Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order protecting Sonoma County neighborhood against illegal Cannabis tourism

UPDATE: SOSN Press Release

A group of Sonoma County residents has filed a lawsuit to shut down an illegal pot grow and cannabis tourism operation in the Purvine Road neighborhood. The suit alleges that the unlicensed grower is transforming a peaceful stretch of the Petaluma Dairy Belt into an unlawful cannabis event venue, corporate retreat and cannabis tourism destination.

Petaluma, CA, October 20, 2018— PETALUMA, California, October 19, 2018 – A group of Sonoma County residents has filed a lawsuit to shut down an illegal pot grow and cannabis tourism operation in the Purvine Road neighborhood. The suit alleges that the unlicensed grower is transforming a peaceful stretch of the Petaluma Dairy Belt into an unlawful cannabis event venue, corporate retreat and cannabis tourism destination.

The grow, located at 334 Purvine Road, has been operating without a permit since 2017. According to neighbors, tourists regularly visit the property arriving on buses to view the cannabis operation and eat and relax at picnic tables in the cannabis field. Neighbors also object to steps by the owners to turn the property into a cannabis event venue and retreat. Group dinners, featuring cannabis-infused food and cocktails, are hosted in a barn which the owners renovated for that purpose. The property is advertised online, for a minimum fee of $8,000, as a “private retreat” for up to 250 guests, with overnight accommodations and event-related offerings, such as furniture rental, staff and catering.

Neighbors are asking the court to halt these activities as illegal under both state and local law. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the San Francisco-based property owner and cannabis operator, Petaluma Hills Farm, LLC and Sonoma Hills Farm, LLC; their owners and officers; and the cannabis tour operator, The Sonoma County Experience, LLC.

Yesterday, October 18, the court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from cultivating cannabis without a license and permit; hosting cannabis events or engaging in cannabis promotional activities; sponsoring non-cannabis events without an event permit; and operating the property as a vacation rental or bed and breakfast. A further hearing in the case is set for November.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are residents of Purvine Road and a neighborhood advocacy group, No Pot on Purvine. Phoebe Lang, one of the plaintiffs, said the neighbors took legal action when it became clear that their once-quiet neighborhood was under attack. “We cherish the beauty and tranquility of rural Sonoma,” she said, “and will fight to preserve our peaceful way of life. Purvine Road is no place for tour buses full of party-goers.” Britt Christiansen, another plaintiff, added, “I want to raise my family in the country, not next to an event center and tourist stop. I love the fresh air and quiet evenings. I love knowing all my neighbors. All that will be lost if the cannabis tourism operation at 334 Purvine Road continues.”

Attorney Kevin Block of Block & Block LLP is representing the neighbors. “None of my clients is against legal cannabis,” he said. “But illegal cannabis, and cannabis tourism, are a different kettle of fish. Illegal operators must be shut down in order for legal operators to succeed. And the ban on cannabis tourism should be kept in place until the County can thoroughly study its detrimental neighborhood and environmental impacts.”

“We will be filing a code enforcement complaint with Sonoma County shortly,” Block continued. “The County has tools and resources that are not available to my clients as private citizens. We want and expect the County to be our full partner in ending the illegal activity on Purvine Road.”

Contact Info:

Block & Block LLP Kevin Block 707-246-9013 kb@winelawyers.com http://www.winelawyers.com

Link to complaint, press release and photographs: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zdd09xvq3rebuom/AACcuE5B1Vh98UPkjTDhmzVCa?dl=0

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

 

Graton Project and next actions from neighbors

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 09:43

Neighborhood groups are centralizing their efforts to get sensible commercial cannabis regulations in Sonoma County where the supervisors have thrown open the doors to this industry and without state compliance and firm regulations that spell out the boundaries.  Association of bay Area Governments has published ordinances online. See: http://www.sosneighborhoods.com/  for those ordinances in comparison and also Google Earth map showing where they are. Several days ago Permit Sonoma released the applications which was 66 pages long. You can get those online at Permit Sonoma.

If you are concerned the following action and notice is from Friends of Atascadero Wetlands (FAW).

The applicants, Loud Enterprises, canceled the meet-and-greet that they had scheduled for last Saturday, 10/20, by posting a note on their gate off the trail. We were able to inform hundreds of trail walkers/bikers/neighbors instead and gathered almost 200 signatures on a petition opposing this project. Steve Rosen, the planner, commented that he had received more than 100 comments on this application alone, and that was several days ago.

Thanks for all the emails and letters so far – to the planner and to our supervisor. Don’t stop now. We have momentum.

If you haven’t already written your emails to Steve Rosen and copied Supervisor Hopkins, scroll down for ACTION #1.

If you have completed Action #1, we have a new action below:

ACTION #2 to address the broader issue of cannabis regulations as regards to setbacks and commercial projects. Please use your own words and thoughts.

  • Insist that all the Regional Parks trails, are in effect, parks, and that the mandatory 1000′ setbacks to parks in the cannabis ordinance should be amended to include these trails. Trails are just as sensitive a use as parks. They are areas where children are present in great numbers.
  • Question the 600′ setbacks to indoor grows applying to schools K-12 only, instead of adding day care centers and pre-schools. Was this a special concession for a particular situation? Otherwise, it’s arbitrary to conclude that K-12 is any different, since all these uses are places where children are present and concentrated
  •  Or urge a moratorium for all new commercial cannabis operations on agriculturally zoned properties for 3-5 years. Other areas have done this, either because of problems that developed or anticipation of these problems. The County should investigate limiting cannabis to more appropriate zoning, such as industrial and manufacturing where the security requirements and othe r negative impacts of cannabis are more appropriate.

    We are not urging a ban on all cannabis production. 

  • Urge a ban on commercial grows. Other areas have done this, either because of problems that developed or anticipation of these problems.

The same objections that one would have to this project apply to most cannabis projects, so state them, but the real problem is commercial grows. Urge these planners to ban commercial grows and processing in Sonoma County, as some other states and counties have done.

Copy and paste links below if they won’t work with your email program.

Address your email to
Lynda.Hopkins@sonoma-county.org
and CC:
David.Rabbitt@sonoma-county.org
James.Gore@sonoma-county.org
Susan.Gorin@sonoma-county.org
Shirlee.Zane@sonoma-county.org
Tim-Ricard@sonoma-county.org
srosen@migcom.com

ACTION #1, if you have not already done this.

Send an email to the planner, Steve Rosen srosen@migcom.com and cc: Lynda Hopkins (lynda.hopkins@sonoma-county.org to make comments on the plans that we sent previously. Anything that you bring up MUST be addressed through this process. Ask questions if you don’t know the answer. Pick your concerns from the list below. Please use your own words and don’t put concerns in the same order. Form letters are not nearly as effective. No time to do this? Send a short email that you object to the project based on health and safety, scale, closeness to the trail and other incompatible aspects. Reference UPC18-0044/2595 Railroad Street, Graton.

  • Proximity to the West County Trail and schools in Graton. Trails ARE parks and require the same setbacks.

  • Incompatibility with rural character of adjacent neighborhoods.

  • Negative effect of property values throughout the neighborhoods.

  • Security and safety risks to neighbors from cannabis associated crime.

  • Narrowness and safety issues with Railroad St, which parallels the trail and is often used as a trail bypass.

  • Safety issues with inadequate turnouts for emergency vehicles on Railroad St.

  • Night lighting and it’s effects on wildlife and your ability to witness the night skies.

  • Proximity to designated wetlands and Atascadero Creek, both recognized in the General Plan as important natural resources.

  • Increased flooding from impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, concrete and asphalt. The property floods routinely.

  • Question the ability of the property to perk. No septic plans are provided. The County will not allow porta-potties, even temporarily.

  • Increased traffic in Graton, where the trail users are detoured around the winery building on narrow, congested Bowen St.

  • Noise from greenhouse fans, employees, traffic. Prevailing winds from he SW will blow any objectionable noise into neighborhoods.

  • Size of operation seems to violate the allowable acreage

  • Disposal of wastewater

  • Ugliness of this type of commercial operation in an especially beautiful rural and natural setting

  • Odors. Particulates (called terpines) have a known effect on respiratory health. Prevailing winds from the SW will blow any objectionable odors into neighborhoods.

This is not a complete list. Add anything of concern. The applicants plans mention using recycled winery wastewater, that they have access to, and cleaning it up to potable water. That requires studies to determine if it would work. Just saying they will do that, doesn’t assure that they won’t eventually drill a well.

Ask questions if you are unsure about any of the aspects of their project.

Anna Ransome

Friends of Atascadero Wetlands

ransome@sonic.net

 

 

 

SCOTUS Lead Paint Ruling Could Open Door to Corporate Liability for Climate, Gun Violence, and Opioid Crises

Sat, 10/27/2018 - 09:28
“Like the lead paint case, we have an industry that knew its products could inflict serious damage and continued to promote those products anyway,” explained Vic Sher, a San Francisco attorney who represented the city of Imperial Beach and San Mateo and Marin counties in a climate suit. SCOTUS Lead Paint Ruling Could Open Door to Corporate Liability for Climate, Gun Violence, and Opioid Crises

“Like the lead paint case, we have an industry that knew its products could inflict serious damage and continued to promote those products anyway.”

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer 4 Comments The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear appeals from paint manufacturers of a ruling that requires them to pay more than $400 million for lead paint inspections and removals in more than a million California homes. (Photo: Ben W./Flickr/cc) In a move that could open the door for future efforts to hold corporations accountable for knowingly endangering public health, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear appeals from paint manufacturers of a ruling that requires them to pay more than $400 million for lead paint inspections and removals in more than a million California homes.

During the drawn-out legal battle, the manufacturers—Sherwin-Williams, ConAgra, and NL Industries—warned that the ultimate outcome would set a precedent for corporate liability lawsuits. Reporters and legal experts were quick to note that the ruling—which stems from litigation first launched in 2000—could bolster “public nuisance” cases tied to the global climate crisis, the U.S. opioid epidemic, and gun violence.

In an August legal brief (pdf) filed in support of the lead paint makers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business lobbying group, claimed that “just in the last twelve months, in federal courts alone, at least 80 new public nuisance cases of this sort have been filed by states and other government entities against American businesses, all seeking to impose sweeping liability.”

City, county, and state governments across the country have launched lawsuits that seek to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for the consequences of anthropogenic global warming, which is largely driven by the continued use of fossil fuels. Comparing the lead paint battle to suits that California cities and counties brought against Big Oil, UCLA environmental law expert Sean Hecht told the Los Angeles Times, “The cases are strikingly similar.”

“Like the lead paint case, we have an industry that knew its products could inflict serious damage and continued to promote those products anyway,” explained Vic Sher, a San Francisco attorney who represented the city of Imperial Beach and San Mateo and Marin counties in a climate suit. Although none of the climate suits have succeeded yet, the Supreme Court’s move (pdf) on Monday could impact ongoing cases.

The high court’s decision is slated to cost the lead paint manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars, though a lower court had initially put them on the hook for more than a billion dollars in damages. Four years ago, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ordered the companies to pay $1.15 billion for lead paint remediation in homes in seven counties—Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and Ventura—and three cities—Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco.

After the companies appealed, a three-judge panel ruled last year they only should be liable for homes built before 1950, reducing damages to between $409 million and $730 million, according to a Sherwin-Williams filing.

The federal government outlawed consumer use of lead-containing paint in 1978, but many homes built before that time have not had the paint removed. “If the paint is in good shape, the lead paint is usually not a problem,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but “deteriorating lead-based paint (peeling, chipping, chalking, cracking, damaged, or damp) is a hazard and needs immediate attention.”

Health risks of lead exposure for young children include behavioral and learning problems; lower IQ and hyperactivity; slowed growth; hearing problems; and anemia. For pregnant women, lead exposure can put the mother at risk for miscarriage; cause pre-term birth or low birth weight; impact brain, kidneys, and nervous system development; and increase the likelihood of learning or behavioral problems. Adults exposed to lead can experience cardiovascular effects, increased blood pressure, incidence of hypertension, decreased kidney function, and reproductive problems.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don’t survive on clicks. We don’t want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can’t do it alone. It doesn’t work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Won’t Exist.

$15 $27$50 $100Other Share This Article

 

 

 

FULL STORY & COMMENTS

‘Appalling’: Asbestos Imports Soar 2,000% as Trump Loosens Restrictions on Cancer-Causing Material

Fri, 10/26/2018 - 10:05
“Donald is on our side!” Uralasbest—Russia’s largest asbestos producer—declared in a July Facebook post, which was accompanied by photos showing pallets of asbestos products with Trump’s face stamped on the packaging as a seal of approval.” ‘Appalling’: Asbestos Imports Soar 2,000% as Trump Loosens Restrictions on Cancer-Causing Material

“Americans cannot identify or manage the risks of asbestos. The time is now for the EPA to say no to the asbestos industry and finally ban asbestos without exemptions.”

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

“When most people learn that asbestos remains legal even after it’s claimed the lives of countless Americans, they’re shocked,” added EWG president Ken Cook. “And when the public finds out the Trump administration is actively working to keep it legal, they are furious.” (Photo: Carterdayne via Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump’s industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes steps to loosen restrictions on the commercial use of asbestos—which is known to cause cancer and lung disease—an analysis of federal data published Tuesday found that asbestos imports to the U.S. surged by nearly 2,000 percent between July and August of this year.

“It is appalling that unlike more than 60 nations around the world, the U.S. not only fails to ban asbestos, but allows imports to increase.”
—Linda Reinstein, Asbestos Disease Awareness OrganizationConducted by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and Environmental Working Group (EWG), the analysis found that “the U.S. imported more than 341 metric tons of asbestos” last year, with imports expected to double in 2018 thanks to the Trump administration’s aggressive and deeply harmful deregulatory agenda.

“It is appalling that unlike more than 60 nations around the world, the U.S. not only fails to ban asbestos, but allows imports to increase,” Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of ADAO, said in a statement. “Americans cannot identify or manage the risks of asbestos. The time is now for the EPA to say no to the asbestos industry and finally ban asbestos without exemptions.”

“When most people learn that asbestos remains legal even after it’s claimed the lives of countless Americans, they’re shocked,” added EWG president Ken Cook. “And when the public finds out the Trump administration is actively working to keep it legal, they are furious.”

But as environmentalists raise alarm that the Trump administration is actively facilitating the importation and use of asbestos even in the face of its devastating health effects, asbestos producers are ecstatic at the White House’s lax stance toward the carcinogenic mineral.

“Donald is on our side!” Uralasbest—Russia’s largest asbestos producer—declared in a July Facebook post, which was accompanied by photos showing pallets of asbestos products with Trump’s face stamped on the packaging as a seal of approval. “Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States,” the seal read.

As a real estate developer, Trump was quite vocal about belief that asbestos is “100 percent safe,” despite the global medical consensus that the mineral is dangerous and should be banned.

In his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, Trump insisted that “the movement against asbestos the movement against asbestos was led by the mob.”

FULL STORY & COMMENTS This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don’t survive on clicks. We don’t want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can’t do it alone. It doesn’t work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Won’t Exist.

$15 $27$50 $100Other Share This Article

Cannabis biz along West County Trail stirs protest

Fri, 10/26/2018 - 09:36

On the cannabis trail in Graton
By E.I. Hillin, Staff Writer, e.hillin@sonomawest.com Oct 24, 2018

Cannabis biz along West County Trail stirs protest

A proposed cannabis project along West County Regional Trail has residents fired up and county supervisors

Expand

looking for answers to why bike lane trails are classified differently than regional parks.

Fifth District Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said she believes regional trails are part of the regional parks network.

“In my opinion it should be considered a linear park,” Hopkins said.

But as of now the county does not share that opinion. Although the regional parks department maintains regional trails, county staff told supervisors during the Oct. 16 meeting that the county’s general plan classifies trails as transportation corridors.

A land use permit for cannabis cultivation requires at least a 1,000-foot setback from a park’s property line to the cannabis operation site. Although the West County Regional Trail is listed as recreational and protected within the county’s Open Space and Conservation Element, the 13-acre cannabis site proposed for Graton would not fall under the setback requirement.

Tim Ricard, Sonoma County Cannabis Program Manager, said staff is looking at the issue. “We received direction from the board to explore options,” he said. Ricard and other county staff will present those options in the next cannabis ad hoc meeting.

Graton residents protest cannabis project

Graton residents, who found out about the cannabis application only days before the supervisor’s meeting, worked quickly to assemble a group to show up and voice their concerns. The public comments stirred supervisors to add the issue to the list of potential amendments to the updated cannabis ordinance.

Continues here

 

Graton Commercial Cannabis Grow speaks out

Fri, 10/26/2018 - 09:13
Neighbors concerns are plenty. Intent looks good but some examples cited not applicable to the reality of our area (owners of this operation not from our county). Example: they used Colorado real estate values when our area is pummeled by out of town/state interests with deep pockets buying land here for investment in “wine country”. Families are forced to compete for homes not investments. Comments?   The problem is cumulative impacts…..66 pages of permits now online at Permit Sonoma and a county government who has the loosest regulations in the Bay Area according to ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments, see http://www.sosneighborhoods.com/). How do you address this?   The PR:  

Thank you for reaching out. We value every bit of feedback.

I would love the opportunity to get you up to date information on our project to help mitigate your concerns:

We plan to grow primarily CBD focused plants; CBD strains have very different aromatic profiles that travel significantly less distance than their THC heavy counterparts.

We receive all of our water from a long term agreement with a bottling facility that has been in place for the past 25 years; they continuously clean bottles and route the runoff water into a reservoir that we are obligated to drain regardless of our operation; no matter what the land is being used for that water has to be used by us or the facility in perpetuity.

When it comes to traffic on the road we will have very few employees and exponentially less traffic opposed to a conventional farm. A cannabis farm can be operated with a handful of people whereas a conventional farm on land this size would be an astronomically larger scale.

We’re having some great conversations with our neighbors and many of them have expressed how badly they’ve wanted someone to practice organic farming methods on land that has notoriously been sprayed with chemicals for many years and isn’t currently safe for animals and insects passing through.

I’ve attached a copy of our Q&A which covers all the information I’ve offered you today and then some.

Please feel free to email back if you have any more questions.

Kindly,

Jack BuckCEO & Founder

Jackalope Gardens

Q & A provided:

Jackalope Gardens Community Q&A

PART I: ORGANIC, PERMACULTURE CULTIVATION

Will you be growing 100% organically?

Yes, we will be growing 100% organically. We have a garden plan that meets the

Demeter standard , which is considered the highest standard in organic farming.

The organic methods we use are regenerative, also known as permaculture. We will

never use any herbicides, pesticides or anything that would be considered hazardous in

our farming practice. Our CUP includes a plan for dealing with “Hazardous Materials”

because this is a requirement from the County. The only hazardous material we will use

is fuel for our tractor. We will never use a substance that is not Salmon Safe, Clean

Green and Demeter organic.

( https://www.demeter-usa.org/learn-more /)

Many residents have wondered if you would be willing to sign an

agreement/condition for the permit that says you will not spray any toxic

inorganic chemicals in the area and that you commit to organic practices. Would

you be willing to commit to this as a condition of the permit?

Yes, Jackalope Gardens would happily sign a binding agreement stating that we will

never use any product that isn’t organic certified.

We have recently been notified that the pumpkin patches may have been sprayed with

pesticides. We have a zero-tolerance pesticide policy, and will remediate all of the soil

before we plant anything directly into the ground.

I saw the list of organic clean-certified pesticides you plan to use – Regalia, OG

Biowar and Venerate. These all seem like clean products, but then your

application continues on and says you may need to use fertilizers – are these

fertilizers all going to be certified organic?

Yes, all fertilizers will be certified organic. In fact, the “fertilizers” we plan to use are of

our own creation and would be better described as “super soils” and “compost teas”

crafted from our own garden’s organic substances. From time to time, we may also use

organic nitrogen-fixers, like fish powder or seaweed based concentrates.

Are you only growing medical CBD strains or are you growing other high THC

strains as well? Is everything grown on-site for medical use only?

Jackalope Gardens plans to grow primarily CBD strains that are intended for medical

use. These cultivars are targeting medical users such as pain relief, seizure disorders

and sleeping aids. Some will be a mix of high CBD and high THC 1-1 ( 15% to 15%)

ratios. And some will be just a high CBD with a very low THC, closer to the Hemp

varieties. Hemp is any variety with less than 5% THC. Some will be above 20% CBD

and below 5% THC. We are building our business on the medical benefits of Cannabis.

All our cultivars have at least 3% of CBD. All of our unique cultivars are bred to be

Medicine first.

Do you have any future plans to grow in the soil rather than greenhouses and

containers?

Yes, we will be planting in the ground! But first we will be planting the fields with plants

that will leech (bio remediate) both fields and we will harvest them and dispose of the

plants that absorbed any and all pesticide residue left over in the ground from the

previous owners. After that we’ll utilize a technique called Hugelkultur

( https://richsoil.com/hugelkultur/ ) as a no-till, low-water alternative to modern farming.

Hugelkultur is an even more eco-friendly version of permaculture that has the added

benefit of returning carbon to the soil as opposed to the atmosphere.

PART II:MINIMAL, RESPECTFUL, AND COLLABORATIVE USE OF SURROUNDING

AREA

The upper field near Edison St. – Will you allow the current pumpkin farmers to

still grow there and continue using toxic pesticides? What do you plan to do with

that field? Is there a possibility that the grow operations would expand to that

side at some point as well which would increase traffic on Edison St. as well as

Railroad St.?

No, we have absolutely no intention of growing cannabis on the upper field near Edison

Street. We will either turn it into a Community Garden for Graton, or restore it to its

natural state. However, since the field was possibly being sprayed with toxic pesticides

prior to our purchasing it, we will need to remediate the soil before we grow any fruits or

vegetables on it.

Will you be using Edison street as a thoroughfare for traffic to and from your

operation at all? Is there any potential of this in the future? We bought our house

because it is on a dead end street and so little traffic so that is something that is

concerning to us. We have friends on Railroad Street who I know are obviously

concerned about that issue as well.

During the initial build-out phase, we’ll have a few truckloads coming down Railroad

Street. This will occur over the span of a few days, at maximum. Once these shipments

have been completed, the only regular traffic will be from our employees. We will have

between 4 and 10 employees on-site per-day, and will provide an employee carpool

service to limit daily traffic.

During harvest, for our outdoor cultivation once a year, we will have roughly 10

additional people for a period of about two weeks. To mitigate impact, we will use a van

to shuttle extra workers to our site.

What are the hours of operation? Will people be working or coming/going at night

after business hours and on weekends?

Our hours of operation are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.

People will not be working or coming/going after hours. We will still be working on

weekends, but we have no heavy machinery or any means to create much noise at all.

PART III: MITIGATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: NO PESTICIDES, WILDLIFE

FRIENDLY FENCING, RECYCLED WATER

Will chemical inputs from the garden run off into the creek?

No, chemical inputs from the garden will not run off into the creek because we don’t use

chemicals to grow our plants. We’re an organic, permaculture garden. The only

chemical that we’ll have on-site will be diesel for our tractor.

Will your fencing cause an increase in roadkill around the property, which is a

natural wildlife corridor?

No. We will utilize wildlife friendly fencing, that will allow animals to have access to

water, shelter and foraging.

Will you be using Graton’s water?

No, we will not use Graton water. 100% of the water that we’ll use comes from Purple

Wine & Spirits discharge pond. This pond provides us with 6 million gallons of recycled

water per year; whereas all we need for our garden is 1 million gallons.

PART IV: PRESERVING THE AREA’S NATURAL BEAUTY

Do you have any architectural renderings and elevations of the site and proposed

structures that you could share with the community?

We plan to make these available at our next community meeting– information/details to

follow.

Will there be any space between the trail and where your buildings start? This

could be helpful to residents to understand what we will see when we are using

the trail. It is difficult to imagine from a plan view.

We are planning no structure taller than a single story house anywhere on the property.

The greenhouses are 10 feet tall, and our employee building is 10 feet tall. All structures

will be obscured from view by indigenous plants on the fences, and the new growth

planned for nearly all 13 acres; these plants have been specifically selected for their

ability to leech pesticides from the ground and their aesthetic charm. On the west side of

the trail, half way across will be a new line of vegetative screening that will, from that

distance, (3-400’) blend into the tree line that exists currently in the distance and trail

users will not be able to distinguish anything in between. Yes it will change the

landscape view but not in a ‘industrial’ fashion. The aesthetic will change from a

‘conventional farm use’ field area, into a view full of diverse plants that will bio remediate

and actually offer a clean and safe place for threatened and endangered pollinators

specifically the American Dotted Blues, Monarch Butterflies and Bumblebees .

Will all the lights be on at night? Will it create light pollution in the area?

No, we will not create light pollution in the area. Any lights on after dark will be inside

our greenhouses, which will be covered at night. Since we do not operate at night, we

won’t have any other operational light in use.

Will yo ur security lights will prevent the community from enjoying the beautiful

night sky?

No. We are committed to Dark-Sky Friendly Lighting Principles:

● Minimal duration of illumination

○ Each light will be motion-controlled, and will only turn on in the event that

a trespasser is on the property, and triggers that particular light

● Minimal area of illumination

○ Fixtures will aim downward so no light is directed up, or to the sides, to

prevent glare

○ Fixtures will be hooded, such that no light shines upwards

○ No unwanted light will fall onto adjacent property

○ No unwanted light will fall onto the creek (to minimize impact on marine

environment)

● Minimal cold wavelength illumination

○ We’ll use bulbs on the warm end of the light spectrum, to reduce impact

on the natural environment

● Minimal amount of illumination

○ We’ll use the minimum number of lights required by the state

PART V: ENHANCING COMMUNITY SAFETY

Can you tell us anything more about security? I know this is a huge concern for

many residents.

Numerous studies (such as this one from UCLA) show that the enhanced security

presence that licensed cannabis operations brings to an area actually makes it safer.

We are not contesting the security threat that an unpermitted cannabis operation may

pose. However, we respectfully point out that we are proposing a permitted cannabis

operation, by contrast.

For security reasons we cannot release our full security plan. However, we can tell you

that we are required to take certain safety precautions, such as installing perimeter

fencing. Since we are prohibited from publishing our official Security Plan in its entirety,

we welcome you to continue asking us questions about safety as they arise.

Finally, we’ve made sure to take steps to mitigate the potential negative aesthetic effect

of these precautions. For example, we’re going to cover our fence with roses, grapes,

blackberries, and indigenous species to create a pleasant garden feel. Furthermore, we

are ensuring that our security lights are motion-activated, have as short of a triggered

period as possible, and are angled away from all homes and have shielding to ensure

dark sky conventions. Essentially, unless someone is trespassing onto our property, the

lights will not be activated.

PART VI: ODORS

Will you allow employees to smoke cigarettes on the property? This community

is nearly 100% void of cigarette smoking and when someone does smoke it

travels and can be smelled from far away. I believe this will be an issue for

residents. The whole time we have lived here it is very rare to smell cigarette

smoke. Would you consider making the facility non-smoking?

We are extremely sympathetic to the fight against cigarettes and plan to enact a

“no-smoking” policy on the farm. Not only is cigarette smoke harmful to humans, but it is

harmful to the plants as well.

Is this garden going to make the entire area smell like cannabis?

No. We only plan to grow CBD-rich strains, meaning that our plants don’t release the

typical “weed smell” that is emitted by THC-heavy plants. They mostly just smell like

hay.

Moreover, outdoor cannabis gardens do not suffer from the issue of concentrated smell,

due to the abundant airflow allowing for dispersion. The smell is only noticeable within

100 feet of the plants, and only during the plant’s flowering cycle. All of our setbacks are

well over 100 feet from all sides, and therefore there will be no detectable smell.

PART VII: PROPERTY VALUES

Will this project negatively impact my property values?

Here is an excerpt from an article about the impact of cannabis on real estate markets

in Colorado:

Impact on residential sales

Colorado’s state law allows for counties to determine if they and how they want to

legalize and regulate the drug. Areas where it’s legal attract more homebuyers,

including marijuana users as well as entrepreneurs and job seekers. As more growers

and retailers open up shop in these municipalities, the demand for workers rise. The

influx of new residents inevitably leads to more home sales and higher rents. There are

also plenty of people moving to pot-friendly states without intent to work for the industry,

but rather to enjoy the bud of its labor.

Impact on home values

Realtor.com reports the four states with at least a year of experience with recreational

marijuana sales showed a marked increase in home prices — well above the national

median price.

The data from Colorado provides some of the best insights on what happens to the

housing market after recreational use is legalized because it has permitted its use the

longest. Since the first shops started operations on January 1st, 2014, the median home

sale price in the state has risen from $248,000 in the first half of 2014 to $298,000 in the

first half of 2016 according to the realtor.com analysis. In jurisdictions where the drug

can be purchased, the median sales price of homes in the second quarter of 2016 were

a hit $305,200 while homes in areas where it is banned only went for $267,200.

Resources

● https://www.demeter-usa.org/learn-more /

● https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa799.pdf

● https://richsoil.com/hugelkultur/

● https://www.proplogix.com/blog/the-budding-impact-of-marijuana-on-real-estate

● https://psmag.com/economics/housing-high

Please feel welcome to contact us with any questions, comments or suggestions at

outreach@jackalopegardens.com . We’re also very happy to meet in person, and/or take

you on a tour of the garden!

In response to Trump administration efforts, Oregon moves to ban offshore drilling

Thu, 10/25/2018 - 17:46
As the Trump administration eyes opening federal waters up to offshore drilling, states are fighting back. E.A. Crunden Twitter Oct 23, 2018, 11:17 am

SHARE

Face Rock viewed from above the beach in Face Rock State Park in Bandon Oregon on the southern Oregon coast. CREDIT: Education Images/UIG via Getty Images

SHARE -->

Oregon plans to permanently block offshore drilling off of its coast, in the latest indicator that efforts by the Trump administration to expand oil and gas exploration and development in federal waters remain highly unpopular in coastal states. The move also comes amid a tightening race for governor that could significantly impact how Oregon addresses climate issues going forward.

In a Facebook Live event on Monday, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) announced that the state will move to ban offshore drilling, a move supported by green groups and environmental advocates.

“Across Oregon, we are certainly seeing the strain of climate change,” Brown said, pointing to increasingly devastating wildfires, as well as persistent algal blooms in state waters and the rise of deadly storms, trends climate scientists have attributed to global warming. “At a time when the states are doing more than the federal government to protect the environment, the Trump administration is trying to allow oil rigs to be built off of every single coast line in America except for Florida,” Brown said. “I’m tired of waiting for the federal government to come to their senses and realize this is a terrible mistake.”

The governor said she will sign an executive order in coming days to formalize the ban, and that she will be working with lawmakers to ensure “that no future governor can reverse this executive order with the stroke of a pen.” Pointing to a recent dire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report highlighting the pressing need to combat climate change, Brown said she would continue to fight the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks.

 

The number of people who hate Trump’s offshore drilling plans keeps growing

Under President Trump, offshore drilling efforts have gained traction despite widespread opposition from states and environmental activists. In January, Trump proposed opening virtually all federal waters to drilling, including the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Under that five-year leasing plan, spanning from 2019 to 2024, some 90 percent of U.S. offshore areas would open to drilling.

On the West Coast, efforts to expand offshore drilling have been met with vicious opposition, with the governors of California, Oregon, and Washington all opposed. The more politically diverse Atlantic Coast has shown similar resistance, with a lengthy bipartisan list of state and local lawmakers all in opposition to the Trump administration’s plans. Exactly one Atlantic Coast governor, Maine’s Paul LePage (R), has indicated his support for offshore drilling.

Public opinion on offshore drilling meanwhile remains overwhelmingly negative and at least one survey published in May by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland found that more than 60 percent of voters oppose lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.

And according to a report last month, Trump’s plan also threatens scores of national parks, including the Channel Islands National Park in California, the Everglades in Florida, and Cape Hatteras in North Carolina. The National Parks Conservation Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) May report argued that the burning of fossil fuels in offshore areas could expose protected natural areas to both sea level rise and storm surges exacerbated by climate change.

Trump’s offshore oil and gas drilling plan threatens scores of coastal national parks From Cape Hatteras National Seashore to Channel Islands National Park, coastal lands are under attack.

In an effort to push back against the administration’s efforts to open up coastal waters to oil and gas lawmakers are increasingly turning to their own devices, as demonstrated by bipartisan efforts like the bill introduced Tuesday.

In New Jersey, legislators unanimously passed the nation’s toughest offshore oil drilling legislation in April, banning both drilling and natural gas exploration in coastal waters. Only one lawmaker, Parker Space (R), voted against that bill.

California is also moving closer to uniformly rejecting any such efforts in its own waters. Last week, the state’s Senate and Assembly passed two bills effectively banning offshore drilling, in a direct blow to the Trump administration. That legislation will likely be finalized in August by the wider California legislature.

The bipartisan bill introduced on Tuesday, however, emerged on the same day that the American Petroleum Institute (API) announced a new coalition in support of offshore drilling. The Explore Offshore initiative aims to argue the benefits of drilling, presenting such efforts as an economic opportunity.

“In order to responsibly plan for tomorrow we must continue to explore safely and develop oil and natural gas resources today to ensure America’s economic future,” former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson told reporters Wednesday. Nicholson is helping to head the API initiative.

That effort will focus on the Southeast, namely the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida — overlapping with the same region lawmakers are working to protect from offshore drilling.

Center for Biological Diversity: Trump Administration Withholding Lifesaving Protection for 78 Species

Thu, 10/25/2018 - 17:28
SWAMP WATCH Head of Department of Fish & Wildlife was just appointed, former lawyer for Monsanto with NO EXPERIENCE relative to her new position…..what could possibly go wrong? “The Trump administration’s anti-regulatory agenda is turning it into the extinction presidency,” said Greenwald. “The vast majority of the American public wants to see endangered species protected, but administration officials are flushing these imperiled plants and animals down the toilet for their patrons in the oil industry and other polluters.”

Analysis: Trump Administration Withholding Lifesaving Protection for 78 Species

Feds Fall Behind on Addressing Backlog of Wildlife Needing Protection

PORTLAND, Ore.— For the second year in a row, the Trump administration has fallen short in protecting species under the Endangered Species Act, ultimately putting dozens of native plants and animals at heightened risk of extinction.

According to a new analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to make protection decisions for 57 species or designate critical habitat for another 21 promised under a seven-year workplan developed by the agency in 2016.The agency is under the leadership of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. “Zinke and other Trump officials are preventing the Fish and Wildlife Service from doing critical work to protect species from extinction,” said Noah Greenwald, the Center’s endangered species director. “The wolverine, lesser prairie chicken and Hermes copper butterfly are all species Trump and Zinke left high and dry.”

The workplan was created to address a backlog of more than 500 imperiled species awaiting protection decisions. In fiscal year 2018, the workplan called for 82 separate decisions about listing species or designating critical habitat. Another 13 decisions were never completed in fiscal year 2017, for a total of 95 decisions.

Instead the agency only managed to make 18 decisions in 2018, resulting in listing of only four species and proposed protection for only eight species. Another six species were denied protection, including one, the beaverpond marstonia, which had gone extinct waiting for protection.

“The Trump administration’s anti-regulatory agenda is turning it into the extinction presidency,” said Greenwald. “The vast majority of the American public wants to see endangered species protected, but administration officials are flushing these imperiled plants and animals down the toilet for their patrons in the oil industry and other polluters.”

Delays in protecting species have real consequences. At least 46 species having gone extinct waiting for protection since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973.  During the Obama administration, a total of 357 species were protected for a rate of 37 per year. Likewise under the Clinton administration, a total of 523 species were protected, for a rate of 62 species per year.

So far the Trump administration, which has protected just 14 species — all but one proposed under the previous administration — is shaping up to be even worse than the Bush administration, when only 62 species were protected.

95 Imperiled Species Covered by Fish and Wildlife’s Workplan

Species Name Fiscal Year Scheduled Action Type Outcome Candidate Arkansas Mudalia 2018 12M Missing Ashy Darter 2018 12M Missing Atlantic Pigtoe 2018 12M PL, 4(d) Barrens Darter 2018 12M Missing Barrens Topminnow 2018 12M PL, 4(d) Bartram Stonecrop 2018 12M Missing Beardless Chinch Weed 2018 12M Missing Beaverpond Marstonia 2018 12M Negative, extinct Big Cypress Epidendrum 2018 12M Missing Black Rail 2018 12M PL, 4(d) Black-capped Petrel 2018 12M PL, 4(d) Blackfin Sucker 2017 and 2018 12M Negative Brook Floater 2018 12M Missing Cape Sable Orchid 2018 12M Missing Carolina Madtom 2017 and 2018 12M Missing Cedar Key Mole Skink 2017 and 2018 12M Missing Chihuahua Scurfpea 2018 12M Missing Clam-shell Orchid 2018 12M Missing Donrichardsonia macroneuron 2018 12M Missing Eastern Hellbender 2018 12M Missing Elk River Crayfish 2018 12M Missing False Spike 2018 12M Missing Florida Sandhill Crane 2018 12M Missing Franklin’s Bumblebee 2018 12M Missing Joshua Tree 2018 12M Missing Lesser Prairie Chicken 2017 and 2018 12M Missing Longsolid 2018 12M Missing MacGillivray’s Seaside Sparrow 2018 12M Missing Mohave Shoulderband Snail 2018 12M Negative Mountain Blue-eyed Grass 2018 12M Missing Neuse River Waterdog 2017 and 2018 12M Missing Ozark Pyrg 2018 12M Missing Panama City Crayfish 2018 12M PL Panamint Alligator Lizard 2018 12M Missing Peppered Chub 2018 12M Missing Purple Lilliput 2018 12M Missing Redlips Darter (broken out from ashy darter complex) 2018 12M Missing Round Hickorynut 2018 12M Missing San Joaquin Giant Flower-loving Fly 2017 and 2018 12M Missing Seaside Alder 2018 12M Missing Slenderclaw Crayfish 2018 12M PL, 4(d) Tinian Monarch 2017 and 2018 12M Missing Tippecanoe darter 2018 12M Missing Tricolor Blackbird 2018 12M Missing White-tailed Prairie Dog 2018 12M Negative Woodville Karst Cave Crayfish 2018 12M Negative Yellow Banded Bumblebee 2018 12M Missing Humboldt Marten 2018 12M remand PL, 4(d) Northern Spotted Owl 2017 and 2018 12M uplisting Missing Black Pine Snake 2018 FCH Missing Elfin Woods Warbler 2017 FCH Missing Kula Wahine Noho 2018 FCH Missing O`oko`Olau 2018 FCH Missing Spring Pygmy Sunfish 2017 and 2018 FCH Missing Uhi Uhi 2018 FCH Missing Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 2017 FCH Missing Candy Darter 2018 Final Missing Mist Forestfly 2017 and 2018 Final Missing Trispot Darter 2018 Final Missing Western Glacier Stonefly 2017 and 2018 Final Missing American Wolverine 2018 FL Missing Louisiana Pine Snake 2018 FL FL, 4(d) San Fernando Valley Spineflower 2018 FL Negative Black Warrior Waterdog 2017 and 2018 FLFCH FLFCH Texas Hornshell 2017 and 2018 FLPCH FL Yellow Lance 2018 FLPCH FL Big Sandy Crayfish 2017 PCH Missing Florida Bonneted Bat 2017 PCH Missing Florida Bristle Fern 2018 PCH Missing Green Sea Turtle 2017 PCH Missing Guyandotte River Crayfish 2017 PCH Missing Miami Tiger Beetle 2017 PCH Missing Red Knot 2017 PCH Missing Sonoyta Mud Turtle 2018 PCH Missing Suwannee Moccasinshell 2018 PCH Missing Chapin Mesa Milkvetch 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Fremont County Rockcress 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Frisco Buckwheat 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Frisco Clover 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Hermes Coper 2017 and 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Island Marble 2017 and 2018 PLPCH PLPCH Yes Marrón Bacora 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Ostler’s Peppergrass 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Red-crowned Parrot 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Sierra Nevada Red Fox 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Striped Newt 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Texas Fatmucket 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Texas Fawnsfoot 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Texas Pimpleback 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Wright’s Marsh Thistle 2017 and 2018 PLPCH Missing Yes Georgetown Salamander 2017 rPCH Missing Narrow-headed Gartersnake 2017 rPCH Missing Northern Mexican Gartersnake 2017 rPCH Missing Salado Salamander 2017 rPCH Missing Slickspot Peppergrass 2017 rPCH Missing Key 12M 12-month finding determining if species warrants listing PL Proposed listing FL Final listing PCH Proposed critical habitat FCH Final critical habitat Candidate species A species that has been found to warrant protection, but is waitlisted 4(d) A rule defining prohibited activities for a threatened species

 

                                                           

Pages