|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
May 2007
California Oak Report
Tuolumne Oak Conservation Advancing
In a recent letter urging Calaveras County officials to immediately adopt meaningful oak conservation measures, the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) noted that Tuolumne County is proposing mitigation measures to prevent property owners from destroying their oak woodlands prior to submitting development plans. CSERC observed:
"At the current time, Tuolumne County is moving forward with an Oak Mitigation Program that is now being scheduled for final consideration and approval by planning commissioners and county supervisors. The current language of that Oak Mitigation Program, (which was unanimously approved by a Board of Supervisors Planning Committee of planners, commissioners, supervisors, agricultural representatives, and business representatives), includes very clear consequences for property owners who attempt to do an end run around State oak mitigation requirements or County oak woodland protection policies. That language spells out that when Premature Removal of Oak Trees occurs within 5 years prior to the submittal of an application for a discretionary entitlement for a land development project, that the County may withhold and defer approval of any application for development of that property for up to 5 years, and fines may be applied as high as three times the current market value of the replacement trees required to mitigate the impact of the premature removal of the oak trees.
Thus, when someone attempts to wipe out oaks before filing an application that may lead to requirements to protect some of those oaks, there will now be very clear consequences."
Evaluating Oak Woodland Cumulative Impacts
The following information is condensed from Tips For Evaluating Cumulative Impact Analyses by Laurel Impett.
A vital provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the requirement that environmental documents contain an analysis of a project’s incremental impacts combined with the effects of other projects. Environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. It is only by analyzing the effects of these sources together that the full environmental consequences of a project become known. While the cumulative impact analysis should be a key component of environmental impact reports and negative declarations, these documents often provide no more than a cursory review of a project’s cumulative environmental effects. Members of the public would be well served to review with a critical eye the cumulative impact analysis in an environmental document.
As defined by CEQA, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental document together with other projects causing related impacts. These impacts occur when the incremental impact of the project, when combined with the effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, are cumulatively considerable. This typically occurs when impacts compound or increase existing environmental problems.
CEQA provides for two very different methods of identifying a project’s cumulative impacts. The environmental document may provide either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
It should come as no surprise that lead agencies often fail to identify and include all of the projects that should be analyzed in a cumulative impact analysis. Agencies may cast their net of geographical scope too narrowly or simply not include projects that are in the pipeline. Even when agencies provide a comprehensive list of projects, they often fail to actually analyze the combined effects. In some instances, the lead agency simply lists the environmental impact, identifies it as significant but fails to provide the analysis of the severity and extent of the impact as required by CEQA. An appropriate analysis of cumulative impacts on sensitive biological species, for example, would include the following:
A list of the projects in the geographical area that could impact sensitive species;
***an identification of the extent of habitat that would be lost from the combined projects; and
***an evaluation of the effect that the cumulative loss of habitat would have on the viability of the local species population or the species as a whole.
It is important to remember that CEQA is not enforced by any agency; it is enforced by the public. Thus, the burden falls upon the commenting public to identify those projects that should have been included in a draft EIR, and request that effects of the combined projects be included in the cumulative impact analysis of the final EIR. If the agency has missed important projects and their inclusion would result in a significant environmental impact that had not been disclosed in the draft EIR, the agency may be required to re-circulate the draft EIR for public review and comment.
Often agencies will rely on the summary of projections or a previous environmental document to satisfy the cumulative impact analysis requirement because it likely requires far less new analysis by the lead agency and its consultants. It is important for the commenting public to carefully consider whether these other documents result in an adequate cumulative impact analysis for the subject project. For example, the lead agency may be relying on an outdated general plan. If the agency is relying on a prior environmental document, carefully check whether that document sufficiently addresses the range of environmental impacts covered by the current project and whether it covers the same geographical area.
Agencies often conclude that a project would not have significant cumulative impacts because they assume that the project’s incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable (i.e., the impacts of the project would be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall environmental problem). Using regional air pollution as an example, the agency might conclude that any emissions caused by the project contribute only nominally to the overall air pollution problem. Relying upon this faulty logic, agencies often incorrectly conclude that the more severe the existing problem, the less significant the project’s impact on the cumulative condition. This approach tends to trivialize the project’s impact. Under the proper approach, a project’s impact would be more significant the more severe the existing environmental problem.
Always keep in mind when reviewing the cumulative sections of environmental documents that the requirement for a cumulative impact analysis must be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment.
CEQA Reading
The Planning and Conservation League Foundation has published a handy, easy to read booklet on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PCLF's Comunity Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act is written by environmental attorney Bill Yeates. The Guide is written for the lay person and activist who wants the basic information about CEQA and how to effectively participate in CEQA's mandatory environmental review proceeding. Also available in Spanish, Community Guide to the CEQA can be ordered on the PCL website (click underlined link) for $15. Also worth mentioning, is Everyday Heroes: Thirty-five Years of the California Environmental Quality, written and photographed by the Planning and Conservation League, the Planning and Conservation League Foundation, and the California League of Conservation Voters showcasing the sweeping achievements of a cornerstone thirty-five year law, the California Environmental Quality Act.
Merchandise
Field Guide to Plant Galls of California and other Western States by Ron Russo, published by University of California Press with the contributions of the Gordon and Betty Moore Fund and the California Oak Foundation. Identifies more than 300 species of galls - 95 on oaks, 22 on members of the rose family, 60 desert species, and 35 species new to science. Includes information on host selection, growth and development, predator and parasite defense, and animal and human uses of galls. Paperback, 397 color pages, $24.95, Members $22.46.
New to Our Website
Evaluating Your Oak’s Net Worth by Rosi Dagit and the Topanga-Los Virgenes Resource Conservation District
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [Current_Issues] [Conservation] [Oak_Tree_Care] [How_To_Help] [Links] [Reference] [Newsletter] [Merchandise]
1212 Broadway, #842 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel. 510-763-0282
Fax: 510-208-4435 oakstaff@californiaoaks.org
|
|
