{"id":91,"date":"2012-02-23T02:08:42","date_gmt":"2012-02-23T02:08:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/?p=91"},"modified":"2016-11-10T20:13:45","modified_gmt":"2016-11-10T20:13:45","slug":"death-of-an-esa-protected-individual-is-a-ceqa-significant-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/death-of-an-esa-protected-individual-is-a-ceqa-significant-impact\/","title":{"rendered":"Death of a Single Individual of an ESA Listed Species is a Significant CEQA Impact"},"content":{"rendered":"

Death of a Single Individual of an ESA Listed Species is a Significant CEQA Impact<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Copyright 2004-2012 David J. Dilworth<\/p>\n

Ordinarily California agency planners and staff are allowed to use their personal judgment about whether a project has a “significant environmental impac<\/strong>t” under California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<\/p>\n

Due to a lack of standards and training and pervasive political pressure this results in a wide range of what is or isn’t a significant impact during preparation of CEQA documents. However, legislators in their wisdom kept a few judgments beyond the reach of politics, planners and agency whims.<\/p>\n

One of those is decisions about endangered species which has an integer numeric threshold – that is rare in environmental law.<\/p>\n

The loss or death of a single individual of a protected species must<\/span> have a Finding of Significant Impact according to CEQA Section 15065 (a).<\/p>\n

“15065. Mandatory<\/span><\/em><\/strong> Findings of Significance”<\/p>\n

“A lead agency shall<\/span><\/em><\/strong> find that a project may have a significant effect<\/strong><\/span> on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared<\/span><\/em><\/strong> for the project where any<\/span><\/em><\/strong> of the following conditions occur:”<\/p>\n

“(a) The project has the potential<\/span><\/em><\/strong> to … reduce the number<\/span><\/em><\/strong> (or restrict the range) of an endangered, rare or threatened species . . . “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is no other possible meaning for “reduce the number<\/strong><\/em>” than the loss of a single individual, as in a population drop from from 500 to 499.<\/p>\n

Recognition of ESA Habitat Too<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, CEQA requires recognition of any<\/strong><\/span><\/em>\u00a0loss of habitat (not just “critical habitat”) used by an officially endangered or threatened species. One Court has already ruled that the loss of as little as a quarter of an acre of habitat<\/span><\/strong> of a listed species “restricts their range” and also requires a Finding of Significant Impact under CEQA Section 15065.<\/p>\n

“Since a finding of significance under the Environmental Quality Act is required \u00a0if [the] range of a single rare or endangered plant is restricted by a proposed development<\/span><\/em><\/strong>, information regarding existence of additional, previously unidentified, rare plant species merely affected magnitude of the impact of the proposed development, and a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report would have to examine affected plant populations as part of its evaluation of the environmental impact.”<\/p>\n

West’s Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code \u00a7 21152, \u00a721166 – citing “Mira Monte Homeowners v. San Buenaventura Cty.” Etc. 165 Cal. App.3d 357; 212 Cal. Rptr. 127 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1985)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Developers, extractors and polluters and agency staff typically argue that these thresholds are too low. Well, not according to\u00a0 California’s Legislature & Governor who agreed and declared that protecting species faced with extinction is of the utmost importance<\/strong> with CEQA Section 21001 (c) —<\/p>\n

“Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels,<\/strong> and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

CEQA does not say “Mitigate and Allow<\/strong><\/span>” the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities. Nor does it say fish and wildlife populations “should<\/span> not<\/em><\/strong>” drop below self-perpetuating levels,”<\/p>\n

Instead, CEQA boldly directs all agencies to “Prevent<\/span><\/em><\/strong> the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities” and “insure<\/span><\/em> that fish and wildlife populations do not<\/em><\/span> drop below self-perpetuating levels.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

When an animal or plant has reached the precarious, fragile circumstance of facing a threat of extinction, it is easy and reasonable to show compassion for how any harm<\/span> <\/em><\/strong>to them at all must be considered a significant impact.<\/p>\n

_______________________<\/center><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Death of a Single Individual of an ESA Listed Species is a Significant CEQA Impact Copyright 2004-2012 David J. Dilworth Ordinarily California agency planners and staff are allowed to use their personal judgment about whether a project has a “significant … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[122,119,120,121],"class_list":["post-91","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-environmental-law","tag-ceqa","tag-mira-monte-homeowners","tag-san-buenaventura-cty","tag-west-ann"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91"}],"version-history":[{"count":39,"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":680,"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91\/revisions\/680"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/daviddilworth.com\/env\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}