Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/17/2022 Item PC, SchmidtRe: City's role in saving Earth Dear Council Members, As the two great environmental crises of our time, global warming and species extinction, march forward pretty much unimpeded by humans, our city needs to do a lot more to help, especially with the extinction crisis. While media attention and internet chatter focuses mostly on global warming, science is coming to realize that extinction is probably an even more serious threat to Earth's future than climate change. With our anthropocentric view of things, we egg on that crisis day by day, city action (or inaction) by city action. I'm pleading with you to wake up and start doing otherwise. Fast, because there's no time to spare. One measure that addresses both crises is land preservation. Toward that end a global "30 x 30" movement began some years back. "30 x 30" has a goal of preserving 30% of the earth's ecologically productive surface by 2030 (only 17% is protected today), which now is ONLY 8 YEARS AWAY. Newsom signed California onto the plan, and when he came to office Biden did likewise for the USA. (30 x 30 is an interim step; science tells us 50 x 50 is needed to substantially slow the extinction crisis.) But San Luis Obispo is doing nothing.' We're sitting around while things fall apart all around us. Worse than doing nothing, we're engaging in significant rollbacks of previous initiatives that could support our leading role in 30 x 30. Up to now there's been a sneering attitude from the city that, say, species extirpation on San Luis Mountain isn't a big deal, that human WreckCreation is more important. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to be clear how the extinction crisis proceeds: total extinction is merely the sum of one little local extinction after another. Our municipal actions do count, both positively and negatively. So here are thoughts on some things the city can do better to slow the extinction crisis. 1. Buildout the greenbelt to protect biodiversity. Way, way back in the 1990s, a fairly conservative but environmentally -attuned council established a greenbelt around the city of about 55,000 acres. This was a non-partisan issue supported by residents and leaders alike. The idea was to protect this land, via conservation easement and purchase, connecting the national 1 1 confirmed this with Bob Hill. He puts it a bit differently, that "City staff have been closely following the State of California's 3000 initiative," but bottom line is city is not taking initiative to do anything. Why not be a leader in this with our own city version of 30x30? forest with the Irish Hills for wildlife connectivity, and placing non -urban buffers across highways towards other communities. For a time the city honored this intent, and quickly protected an impressive amount of land. But under the current regime, a myth that our greenbelt is complete, or complete enough, has provided cover for doing next to nothing to complete the greenbelt and for diverting land conservation funds elsewhere. The council needs to understand the greenbelt is far from complete: more than 30,000 acres have no long-term protection,2 and many "protected" acres are in public ownership for non -conservation purposes (e.g. Cal Poly). So we watch as numerous greenbelt parcels come on the market, are marketed for potential development,3 and the city does nothing. We are losing, not gaining, greenbelt. The city has ample funds (flush with sales tax, for example) to budget $7 to $8 million a year to do its part towards achieving 30 x 30. Please do that immediately. 2. Stop rollbacks of protective policies. The city's dereliction of greenbelt acquisition policy is a good example of rollback of well-established policy. • But so are things like redefining terms of human use of our open space and natural reserves to permit things harmful to their established purposes. No example looms larger than redefinition of "passive recreation" to permit near -universal use of foot trails for mountain biking, which is aggressive WreckCreation, not passive recreation. Biking tears up the land and scares the hell out of both foot people and wildlife, and appears the likely cause of the wildlife apocalypse on San Luis Mountain. "Passive recreation," according to the city's policy documents, is permitted only to the extent it doesn't harm natural values, yet mountain biking destroys those natural values and is allowed to continue unabated. • Another rollback is opening open space to night use when those who drew up the rules explicitly excluded such in order to ease human -contact burdens on wildlife. We're told this was necessary because "people wanted it." Well, the whole reason the Earth is threatened is because of things people wanted, and got, with no regard for the consequences. • Rollbacks of good protective policy do not advance 30 x 30. As Earth leaders, the council must direct staff to stop promoting rollbacks, and stop approving them. 3. Start thinking about impacts on non -human life when the city makes decisions about, say, recreation. Z Williamson Act land is not protected. It's an agricultural tax break scheme, and its conservation component can be broken at will by the property owner. 3 The Madonna/Twisselman Ranch on Foothill, which includes the top of Laguna Lake, is being marketed for urban use. Why doesn't the city just buy this logical extension of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve? • For example, the city's newest open space, the Miossi, is a few hundred acres of wild Cuesta Canyon. This wild country practically adjacent to the national forest was primed for permanent habitat protection. But instead of making that its purpose, this wild land has been disrupted for mountain bike WreckCreation, which will tear it to shreds, silt the upper reaches of steelhead habitat in San Luis Creek, and scare off wildlife. Why did the priority for this prime habitat become opening 4+ miles of mountain bike trails instead of habitat conservation? Why build any trails, which disrupt the soil fungal networks that form one of the earth's largest carbon sinks?4 Why not preserve what had always been there — a wild ecosystem? I suspect Harold Miossi would take a dim view of what the city has done to this fragment of his ranch; he was the prime mover in establishing a mountain bike prohibition at Bishop's Peak. He was one of our most distinguished conservationists, and his memory deserves better than this. • The Shabang event at Laguna Park is another example of thoughtlessness in advance about the impacts of "fun" on other creatures. The impacts of an intense 7,000 -person multi -day high - noise event on a relatively undeveloped park, its soil, its flora, should have been obvious. WreckCreation. But there are also incredible impacts on creatures in the immediately -adjacent natural reserve (Laguna Lake NR) and probably in two slightly more distant reserves (Let it Be and SLMtn). Noise of the intensity and pervasiveness neighbors have described can kill animals, or at the very least leave them confused, confounded and disabled.' So on paper, we have a natural reserve for protecting biodiversity, but by our actions we show complete indifference to protecting biodiversity. In a thoughtful city, this sort of thing doesn't happen. 4. Use city programs to advance biodiversity, and supplement them with suitable extensions of existing programs. • The 10,000 tree initiative included in the CAP could also be an instrument for improving in - town biodiversity. I say "could" because as being implemented it is not. For example, the trees being planted with hotel tax revenues are four species, three of which are exotic weeds (one, Pittosporum, is an invasive weed). The only "native," Coast Live Oak, will be procured through the nursery trade, which means it will have genes from who knows where (but not local) and will introduce gene pollution in our actual native oak population. The city has the land (City Farm, for example) to raise thousands of actual SLO natives from local seed. This should become a city -sponsored project to provide planting stock for our urban forest. 4 If you're unfamiliar with the role undisturbed fungal networks play in sequestering carbon, which isn't mentioned in the Climate Action Plan but should be, here is an introduction: https:{/www,the�uardian,com/commentisfree{2021Onov{30{fundi-climate-crisis-ally s At the time of the commissioning of the Diablo Canyon sirens, it was disclosed the sirens could kill birds in close proximity, and discombobulate or maim birds at greater distances. I believe it: my ducks, when the sirens (several blocks away) swung in our direction would violently shake their heads — clearly they were in pain. Laguna Lake NR is largely a waterfowl sanctuary, and at this time of year they'd be nesting. What were the Shabang impacts on waterfowl reproduction? The problem of exotic trees is they generally don't support local fauna. The ecosystems supported by exotics (insect communities, for example) are not necessarily those needed by our local songbirds, many of which are "species of concern." Natives provide such ecological services much better than exotics. • To support native songbirds, the city should encourage owners of urban creeks to restore some riparian willow habitat. This is hugely supportive of songbirds. I own about 75 feet of creek. I lived with a habitat of exotic elms for many years, but over a decade ago decided to rid my creek of elms and plant willows' and alders to supplement 2 live oaks already present. Today the yard teems with dozens of species of songbirds we never saw before. This is such a simple way to extend lost habitat, the city should do everything it can to teach about it and encourage it. These are all things you can do to forward 30 x 30 within your established policy framework. Of course, you could as well also undertake fresh measures that build upon and extend that policy framework. That would demonstrate this city's commitment to doing its fair share to save the Earth. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt ' Replanting willows is simple. During winter one simply sticks a willow twig in the ground, and most will grow.