|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
August 2004
California Oak Report
Bickford Lawsuit I
On June 18, 2004 the Placer County Superior Court entered judgement in favor of California Oak Foundation, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society in a case challenging Placer County's adoption of a Specific Plan and EIR for the Bickford Ranch housing development near the Town of Loomis. The Court ruled that the County's adoption of the Specific Plan was illegal and must be rescinded. The Court issued a second ruling against COF when it upheld the legality of the Environmental Impact Report. The California Oak Foundation, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society are currently considering an appeal of the second ruling.
Bickford Lawsuit II
On May 28, 2004 the Placer County Superior Court dismissed a related lawsuit filed by California Oak Foundation, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society challenging Placer County's adoption of a tentative subdivision maps for the Bickford Ranch project. The California Oak Foundation, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society are currently considering an appeal of this ruling as well.
Note: Bickford proposed to destroy 1,500 acres of high-quality Blue oak woodland habitat (approximately 10,000 Blue oaks).
El Dorado Protects Oak Woodlands
El Dorado County has operated under a court writ of mandate placing severe restrictions on development since 1999, when a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled that the environmental report for the 1996 general plan failed to specify the effect residential growth would have on traffic, water and quality of life in the Sierra foothills.
On July 19, 2004 the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors adopted a new general plan and in the process became the first California county to provide oak woodland mitigation measures compatible with California Environmental Quality Act requirements. Specifically, the El Dorado County General Plan recognizes that the standards established in local oak tree ordinances are insufficient for the purpose of mitigating significant impacts to oak woodland habitat values. El Dorado oak woodland conservation measures include:
OBJECTIVE 7.4.4: FOREST AND OAK WOODLAND RESOURCES
Policy 7.4.4.4: For all new development projects (not including agricultural cultivation and actions pursuant to an approved Fire Safe Plan necessary to protect existing structures, both of which are exempt from this policy) that would result in soil disturbance on parcels that (1) are over an acre and have at least 1 percent total canopy cover or (2) are less than an acre and have at least 10 percent total canopy cover by woodlands habitats as defined in this General Plan and determined from base line aerial photography or by site survey performed by a qualified biologist or licensed arborist, the County shall require one of two mitigation options: (1) the project applicant shall adhere to the tree canopy retention and replacement standards described below; or (2) the project applicant shall contribute to the County's Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) conservation fund described in Policy 7.4.2.8.
Option A
The County shall apply the following tree canopy retention standards:
| Percent Existing Canopy Cover |
Canopy Cover to be Retained |
| 80-10 |
60% of existing canopy |
| 60-79 |
70% of existing canopy |
| 40-59 |
80% of existing canopy |
| 20-39 |
85% of existing canopy |
| 10-19 |
90% of existing canopy |
| 1-9 for parcels > 1 acre |
90% of existing canopy |
Under Option A, the project applicant shall also replace woodland habitat removed at 1:1 ratio. Impacts on woodland habitat and mitigation requirements shall be addressed in a Biological Resources Study and Important Habitat Mitigation Plan as described in Policy 7.4.2.8. Woodland replacement shall be based on a formula, developed by the County, that accounts for the number of trees and acreage affected.
Option B
The project applicant shall provide sufficient funding to the County's INRMP conservation fund, described in Policy 7.4.2.8, to fully compensate for the impact to oak woodland habitat. To compensate for fragmentation as well as habitat loss, the preservation mitigation ratio shall be 2:1 and based on the total woodland acreage onsite directly impacted by habitat loss and indirectly impacted by habitat fragmentation. The costs associated with acquisition, restoration, and management of the habitat protected shall be included in the mitigation fee. Impacts on woodland habitat and mitigation requirements shall be addressed in a Biological Resources Study and Important Habitat Mitigation Plan as described in Policy 7.4.2.8.
Policy 7.4.4.5: Where existing individual or a group of oak trees are lost within a stand, a corridor of oak trees shall be retained that maintains continuity between all portions of the stand. The retained corridor shall have a tree density that is equal to the density of the stand.
California Oak Foundation Note: While the Option A canopy retention standards are appropriate for the Blue oak woodland habitat types found in El Dorado County, they are unsuitable for other oak woodland types. For example, denser Coastal oak woodland habitats require 70 percent canopy cover retention in the 80-100 existing canopy cover range and 75 percent canopy cover retention in the 60-79 existing canopy cover range.
Kern Adopts Deficient Oak Standards
The Bakersfield Californian reports that the Kern County Board of Supervisors have approved new general plan policies to protect oak trees from development in rural areas. Kern County still has no measures to conserve oak woodland habitat values. The tree guidelines apply only to projects that require a zoning change, parcel map or other approval by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. On parcels with at least 10 percent oak canopy cover, at least 30 percent of that canopy must be preserved.
On parcels with less than 10 percent oak canopy cover, only trees 12 inches in diameter or larger must be protected. Janet Cobb of the California Oak Foundation said, "This policy is not consistent with neighboring counties. Los Angeles County has an 8-inch oak standard. This could cause inconsistent protection across county boundaries, especially in massive projects like the development proposed at Tejon Ranch."
Cobb said "One county could end up habitat rich, and the other could end up habitat poor. Kern County is incredibly rich in oak wildlife habitat. It really is incumbent upon everyone in Kern and the adjacent counties to protect that natural wealth."
Tejon Ranch Condors Imperiled
The Tejon Ranch Company, as part of its plan to build 23,000 homes in the Tehachapi Mountains, has applied for a federal "incidental take" permit allowing it to kill endangered California condors. This federal sanction will allow Tejon Ranch, located in Kern County, to "harm, harass, trap, shoot or kill" Condors during or after construction. The permit is required under a habitat conservation plan the company is jointly preparing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Condors were driven to near-extinction in the 1980s and all surviving birds were captured for a breeding program. This recovery program has resulted in 99 condors currently living in the wild in California and neighboring states. The oak woodlands-rich Tejon Ranch is a favorite feeding and resting spot for the birds.
Environmental groups said they oppose the permit. "Giving a permit to harass, harm or kill California condors really goes against all the work being done to turn around the fate of that species," said Kerri Camalo of Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental organization.
Camalo added "It seems an affront to the people who have spent so much time and taxpayers' money to keep this species from becoming extinct. Now we'd allow the few condors alive in the wild to be taken in the name of development."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[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
|
|
