DOCSLIB.ORG

(Ceqa) Addendum To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Ceqa) Addendum To CITY OF SANTA BARBARA CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ADDENDUM TO: CITY OF SANTA BARBARA’S AND IONICS, INCORPORATED’S TEMPORARY EMERGENCY DESALINATION PROJECT (SB-106-90) State Clearinghouse No. 9010859 Final EIR Certified March15, 1991 AND LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SB-97-91) State Clearinghouse No. 91121020 Final EIR Certified May 24, 1994 City of Santa Barbara Planning Division Santa Barbara, California (805) 564-5470 Contact: Steven Greer Prepared by: Dudek 621 Chapala Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 963-0651 Contact: Joe Monaco June 10, 2015 CEQA ADDENDUM: CHARLES MEYER DESALINATION FACILITY JUNE 10, 2015 PAGE 2 OF 87 CEQA ADDENDUM: CHARLES MEYER DESALINATION FACILITY JUNE 10, 2015 PAGE 3 OF 87 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................................................ 5 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................... 6 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING ..................................................... 10 3 DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROJECT .................................................................. 13 3.1 OCEAN INTAKE ................................................................................................13 3.2 DESALINATION FACILITY ................................................................................14 3.3 PUMP STATION AND CHEMICAL STORAGE FACILITY ..................................14 3.4 BRINE MIXING AND SAMPLING STRUCTURE ................................................14 3.5 PLANT PIPING AND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION .........................................15 3.6 WEST PADRE STREET PUMP STATION .........................................................15 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE REACTIVATION PROJECT ................................................... 15 4.1 OCEAN INTAKE ................................................................................................15 4.2 DESALINATION FACILITY MAIN SITE .............................................................16 4.3 PUMP STATION AND CHEMICAL STORAGE FACILITY (PSCA) .....................18 4.4 BRINE MIXING AND SAMPLING STRUCTURE ................................................18 4.5 PLANT PIPING AND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION .........................................18 4.6 WEST PADRE STREET PUMP STATION .........................................................18 5 ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 VISUAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................20 5.2 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .....................................22 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................38 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................47 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .....................................................................................49 5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .....................................................52 5.7 NOISE ...............................................................................................................55 5.8 POPULATION AND HOUSING (GROWTH) ......................................................58 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES .................................................................60 5.10 RECREATION ...................................................................................................63 5.11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .........................................................65 5.12 WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY ..............................................................69 5.13 LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................74 5.14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................75 6 CEQA FINDING ............................................................................................................ 85 7 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 86 CEQA ADDENDUM: CHARLES MEYER DESALINATION FACILITY JUNE 10, 2015 PAGE 4 OF 87 FIGURES 1 Regional Setting ............................................................................................................ 11 2 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................... 12 TABLES 1 Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions (pounds per day unmitigated) ............................................................................................................ 25 2 Estimated Total Construction Emissions (tons per year unmitigated) ............................ 26 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (pounds per day, unmitigated) ........................................................................................................... 27 4 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................... 34 5 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2016) ............................... 35 ATTACHMENTS 1. Santa Barbara Desalination Plant Reactivation Biological Assessment Report for Intake Repair and Maintenance Activities (Tenera 2014a) 2. Santa Barbara Desalination Plant Reactivation Utility Work Boat Anchoring Locations Subtidal Biological Survey Report (Tenera 2014b) 3. Archaeological Survey Report City Of Santa Barbara Charles Meyer Desalination Facility In Relation to the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Grant (Dudek 2014a) 4. Biological Assessment for the Charles Meyer Desalination Facility (Dudek 2014b) 5. Biological Resources Assessment Report for the Charles Meyer Desalination Facility in Relation to the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Grant (Dudek 2015a) 6. Charles Meyer Desalination Plant Reactivation Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Technical Memorandum (Dudek 2015b) 7. Charles E. Meyer Desalination Facility Reactivation Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. CEQA ADDENDUM: CHARLES MEYER DESALINATION FACILITY JUNE 10, 2015 PAGE 5 OF 87 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY In response to a challenging water supply crisis, the Santa Barbara City Council declared a Stage III drought condition in 1990 based on a projected water supply deficit of 47% for the water year 1990-1991. The City Council then directed City of Santa Barbara (City) staff to solicit proposals from private firms for delivery of alternative water supply in amounts between 2,500 and 5,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) no later than September 1991. The supplemental water supplies were to replace the potential loss of water deliveries from Cachuma Reservoir in the 1992-93 water years and replenish groundwater basins that were over-drafted on an emergency basis. Based on the proposals received, the City chose to move forward with the analysis and construction of the Charles E. Meyer Desalination Facility (Approved Project), located at 525 East Yanonali Street, to originally provide an emergency water supply. The decision to construct the Approved Project facility was a deliberative process that involved feasibility studies that evaluated alternative intakes and treatment technologies, plant capacities, and facility locations. The Approved Project was analyzed in two separate Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). The first of those EIRs, prepared in 1991, analyzed the construction and operation of the Approved Project as a temporary emergency facility (1991 EIR). After receiving bids, the City Council directed staff to negotiate a final contract with Ionics, Inc. to deliver a desalination project. The contract included the finance, design, construction and operation of a 7,500 AFY desalination facility (expandable to 10,000 AFY). The contract period was for 5 years with an option to renew for another 5 years. Construction of the Approved Project was completed and the facility was put into operation on March 2, 1992. Additionally, the City applied for and was issued a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the temporary desalination facility by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on May 9, 1991 (Permit 4-91-18). The CDP was issued for a 5-year period. After operating for three months, in the spring of 1992 use of the Approved Project was discontinued when ample rain in March and April 1992 resolved the City’s drought situation. The City elected to place the Approved Project into a standby condition during the remainder of the contract term (through 1996), with the caveat that production of water could be restarted with a 1-year notice by the City. For the purposes of the environmental review in the 1991 EIR and permitting from applicable local and state agencies, the Approved Project was defined as a temporary, 5-year project. However, the treatment equipment was installed for a 25-year (active service) life-cycle and complied with all standards and building codes for permanent structures. After relief of the drought came in 1992, the City recognized that drought would be a reoccurring regional challenge. The City therefore began a review of its long term water supply situation. This was in part based on a 1991 election where City voters gave overwhelming support
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Barbara South Coast FAQS Following the Thomas Fire and Montecito Mudslide (Dec
    Santa Barbara South Coast FAQS following the Thomas Fire and Montecito Mudslide (Dec. 2017-Jan. 2018) TRAVEL CONDITIONS How can I get the most current information on travel conditions in Santa Barbara? Visit Santa Barbara’s travel advisory page is updated regularly and includes the most current information to guide travelers: http://www.santabarbaraca.com/travel HOW TO HELP How can we help the communities of Santa Barbara and Montecito? Visit Santa Barbara is heartbroken for the families, neighbors and businesses in Montecito impacted by the December Thomas Fire and subsequent January 9, 2018 mudslide (also known as the 1/9 debris flow). However, our community spirit is stronger than ever. There are many excellent local nonprofits raising funds either directly for those impacted or through charitable organizations that serve them. Several are listed on our travel advisory page: http:// www.santabarbaraca.com/travel One of the absolute best ways to support our community is for visitors to come experience the special place that the Santa Barbara South Coast is—including the cities and towns of Santa Barbara, Montecito, Goleta and Summerland. While the majority of area businesses were not damaged, many experienced significant loss of income during both the Thomas Fire and the temporary Highway 101 closure. We encourage you to visit our hotels and restaurants, shop at local retailers, and explore the many attractions The American Riviera has to offer. With support of our visitors, we look forward to brighter days ahead in Santa Barbara. CONDITIONS IN SANTA BARBARA Have the mudslides in Montecito and Thomas Fire affected Santa Barbara? The main impacts from the mudslides and fire are isolated to the remote mountains above Montecito, where the Thomas Fire took place in December 2017, as well as the Montecito area, where the mudslides and flooding took place on Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Riau Natural Gas Power Project ESIA Vol.5 Technical Appendices Part F
    DRAFT Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report Project Number: 50182-001 November 2018 INO: Riau Natural Gas Power Project ESIA Vol.5_Technical Appendices Part F Prepared by ESC for the Asian Development Bank The environmental and social impact assessment is a document of the project sponsor. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “Terms of Use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of or any territory or area. Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix E. KA-ANDAL Approval Letter 6 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix F. The Ministry of Agraria and Spatial Planning issued Recommendation Letter 7 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Volume 5: Technical Appendices Appendix G. Comparison of WBG EHS Guidelines with Indonesian Regulations 8 AM039100-400-GN-RPT-1014 Appendix A. Comparisons of Standards Comparison of World Bank Group IFC Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines with Indonesian Environmental Standards Table A1: Gaseous emission for Natural Gas (all turbine types) IFC Guidelines for Thermal Power Plant Indonesian Standard** Parameter Remark Non DA (mg/m3) DA (mg/m3) Limit (mg/Nm3) Particulate Indonesian standards are N/A N/A 30 mg/Nm3 Matter stricter CO NA NA NA - NOx 51* 51* 400 mg/Nm3 IFC guidelines are stricter Indonesian standards are SO2 NA NA 150 mg/Nm3 stricter Opacity NA NA N/A - Note: The figures in red are the more stringent requirements **At dry gas, excess O2 content 15% **Gas volume counted on standard (25 deg C and 1 bar atm) **this is for 95% normal operation in 3 (three) months period ***Source: Ministry of Environmental Regulation No.
    [Show full text]
  • Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant Near Swakopmund, Namibia
    Rössing Uranium Limited SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED RÖSSING URANIUM DESALINATION PLANT NEAR SWAKOPMUND, NAMIBIA DRAFT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT REFERENCE NO: 110914 DATE: NOVEMBER 2014 PREPARED BY ON BEHALF OF Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant: Draft SEMP PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT: Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Rössing Uranium Desalination Plant, near Swakopmund, Namibia AUTHORS: Andries van der Merwe (Aurecon) Patrick Killick (Aurecon) Simon Charter (SLR Namibia) Werner Petrick (SLR Namibia) SEIA SPECIALISTS: Birds –Mike and Ann Scott (African Conservation Services CC) Heritage – Dr John Kinahan (Quaternary Research Services) Marine ecology – Dr Andrea Pulfrich (Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd) Noise - Nicolette von Reiche (Airshed Planning Professionals) Socio-economic - Auriol Ashby (Ashby Associates CC) - Dr Jonthan Barnes (Design and Development ServicesCC) Visual – Stephen Stead (Visual Resource Management Africa) Wastewater discharge modelling –Christoph Soltau (WSP Group) Shoreline dynamics - Christoph Soltau (WSP Group) PROPONENT: Rio Tinto Rössing Uranium Limited REPORT STATUS: Draft Social and Environmental Management Plan REPORT NUMBER: 9408/110914 STATUS DATE: 28 November 2014 .......................................... .......................................... Patrick Killick Simon Charter Senior Practitioner: Aurecon Environment and Advisory Senior Practitioner: SLR Environmental Consulting .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review Appendices
    EPA-600/R-98-174b December 1998 Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review Volume 2. Appendices Prepared by: James E. Houck and Paul E.Tiegs OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. 5465 SW Western Avenue, Suite G Beaverton, OR 97005 EPA Purchase Order 7C-R285-NASX EPA Project Officer: Robert C. McCrillis U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-61) National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, D.C. 20460 A-i Abstract A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. These were cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and wood-fired central heating furnaces. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. The key findings of the review included: (1) The NSPS certification procedure only qualitatively predicts the level of emissions from wood heaters under actual use in homes, (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a method to assess the durability problem is controversial, (3) Nationally the overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices (primarily from older non-certified woodstoves), (4) New technology appliances and fuels can reduce emissions significantly, (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data generated by the two procedures would not be comparable, and, (6) The effect of wood moisture and wood type on particulate emission appears to be real but to be less than an order of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Good Neighbor Environmental Board
    Annual Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board A Presidential and Congressional Advisory Committee on U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental and Infrastructure Issues April 1997 THE GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON U.S.- MEXICO BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES The President The Speaker of the House of Representatives The Vice President The Good Neighbor Environmental Board advisory committee was established by Congress in 1994, to address U.S.-Mexico border environmental and infrastructure issues and needs. The Board is comprised of a broad spectrum of individuals from business, nonprofit organizations, and state and local governments from the four states which border Mexico. The Board also has representation from eight U.S. departments and agencies. The legislation establishing the Board requires it to submit an annual report to the President and the Congress. On behalf of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, I am happy to present this second annual report. During the past year, the Board has had extensive discussions about critical issues facing the border region, including receiving input from citizens in each of the communities where we met, and has developed a series of recommendations reflected in the enclosed report. The report and recommendations focus on changing the development paradigm along the U.S.-Mexico border--to begin to establish a sustainable development vision for the region. In addition to conventional environmental issues, the Board is also addressing health, transportation, housing, and economic development issues. The current recommendations relate largely to implementation of the new binational Border XXI framework and plan, coordination and leveraging of federal programs in the border region, encouragement of greater private sector participation, and development of needed infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2012 Newsletter
    spring 2012 newsletter EDC CELEBRATES 35TH ANNIVERSARY ! INSIDE THIS ISSUE: In 1977, a forward-thinking group of individuals, led by J. Marc McGinnes and the Santa Barbara Citizens for Carone Oil Project Environmental Defense, conceived of the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) as the “link between citizen intention and citizen action.” As the founders noted in the aftermath of the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill, Whales & Shipping Gaviota Coast Plan "If left to their own priorities, government and business, for whatever their reasons, will surely continue to allow the destruction of the natural structure of the planet. Simultaneously they will, apparently, create MPAs-New Underwater Parks and build increasingly dangerous energy facilities with less safety testing and less concern for future ramifications." Santa Rosa Island Goleta Heritage In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, and others over the years, it is clear that citizen action is as Farmland Initiative critical now as it was 35 years ago. As our founders believed so passionately, “someone must watchdog the actions of local government and industry.” EDC was formed to empower citizen watchdogs “to protect Sea Otters themselves and their communities” by serving as “the legal action arm of the environmental community,” Steelhead Recovery providing an “environmental law resource center,” “practical training in citizen advocacy,” and “a mechanism by Plan which citizens can participate in the shaping of environmental policies in their community.” Bottom line: “As Conejo Creek current environmental laws are breached, or attempts are made to preempt local decision-making, the Center’s litigating function will be activated.” Ormond Beach Rincon Grubb- Clean With the help of our clients and partners, EDC has fulfilled our founders’ dreams by responding to the needs of Water Act our community.
    [Show full text]
  • EHS Guidelines for Themal Power Plants
    Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines THERMAL POWER PLANTS DRAFT FOR SECOND PUBLIC CONSULTATION—MAY/JUNE 2017 WORLD BANK GROUP Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants Introduction 1. The Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of Good International Industry Practice (GIIP).1 When one or more members of the World Bank Group are involved in a project, these EHS Guidelines are applied as required by their respective policies and standards. These industry sector EHS guidelines are designed to be used together with the General EHS Guidelines document, which provides guidance to users on common EHS issues potentially applicable to all industry sectors. For complex projects, use of multiple industry-sector guidelines may be necessary. A complete list of industry-sector guidelines can be found at: www.ifc.org/ehsguidelines. 2. The EHS Guidelines contain the performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities by existing technology at reasonable costs. Application of the EHS Guidelines to existing facilities may involve the establishment of site-specific targets, based on environmental assessments and/or environmental audits as appropriate, with an appropriate timetable for achieving them. 3. The applicability of the EHS Guidelines should be tailored to the hazards and risks established for each project on the basis of the results of an environmental assessment (EA) in which site-specific variables, such as host country context, assimilative capacity of the environment, and other project factors, are taken into account. The applicability of specific technical recommendations should be based on the professional opinion of qualified and experienced persons.
    [Show full text]
  • BTF Incident Objectives and Requirements 2011
    Bridger-Teton National Forest WFDSS Incident Objectives and Requirements 2011 Incident Objectives and Requirements This list was compiled from objectives included in old WFSAs (Blind Trail, Boulder, Cow Camp, East Table) and requirements in the FMP. CONTENTS INCIDENT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 2 General ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Economic .................................................................................................................................... 2 Local business/outfitters and guides ................................................................................. 2 Range ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 2 Special uses and private property ...................................................................................... 2 Environmental ........................................................................................................................... 3 Air quality ............................................................................................................................... 3 Cultural resources ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Provincial Framework for AIRSHED PLANNING
    Provincial Framework for AIRSHED PLANNING CONTENTS ii PREFACE iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 7 THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK 9 Stage 1: Evaluate the need for a plan 12 Stage 2: Identify and engage stakeholders 14 Stage 3: Investigate planning synergies 16 Stage 4: Determine priority sources 18 Stage 5: Develop the plan 20 Stage 6: Implement, monitor, and report 22 CONCLUSION 23 REFERENCES 26 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 29 Appendix 1: Background to the framework 33 Appendix 2: Air quality planning and information 35 Appendix 3: Examples of related planning processes 36 Appendix 4: Examples of best practices and local bylaws i PREFACE This document describes a framework for preparing air quality management plans, or "airshed plans," in British Columbia. As such, it should be of interest to a broad range of local stakeholders in air quality, including local and regional governments, health professionals, industry, businesses, environmental and community interest groups, and private citizens. The framework is designed to help those considering or undertaking a planning process to better understand what the Province of British Columbia (the Province) expects from an airshed plan in terms of approach and content. The intent is to encourage greater consistency and efficiency in planning efforts, towards implementation of the Canada-Wide Standards for particulate matter and ozone – key pollutants of concern due to their health and environmental impacts. The Draft Provincial Framework for Airshed Planning represents the culmination of a development process that started in 2005 and included two rounds of stakeholder consultation (see Appendix 1). More than 60 participants contributed to these consultations, drawn from local and regional government, industry, academia, health authorities, and environmental and community organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Gaviota Coast Plan), for Public Hearing and Commission Action at the May 10, 2018 Commission Hearing in Santa Rosa
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AREA 89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA ST., SUITE 200 VENTURA, CA 93001 (805) 585-1800 Th19c DATE: April 24, 2018 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM: Steve Hudson, Deputy Director Barbara Carey, District Manager Deanna Christensen, Supervising Coastal Program Analyst Michelle Kubran, Coastal Program Analyst SUBJECT: County of Santa Barbara Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LCP-4-STB- 16-0067-3 (Gaviota Coast Plan), for public hearing and Commission action at the May 10, 2018 Commission Hearing in Santa Rosa. ______________________________________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBMITTAL Santa Barbara County is requesting an amendment to the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and certified Implementation Program/Coastal Zoning Ordinance (IP/CZO) portions of its certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) to designate the Gaviota Coast Plan area; add associated goals, objectives, policies, actions, programs and development standards as described in the Gaviota Coast Plan; and add implementing zoning district and overlay maps. The Gaviota Coast is located in southern Santa Barbara County and is bounded by the western boundary of the Goleta Community Plan to the east, Vandenberg Air Force Base to the west, the ridgeline of the Santa Ynez Mountains and Gaviota Creek Watershed to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The amendment will result in changes to the LUP and the IP/CZO. The County of Santa Barbara (County) submitted LCP Amendment LCP-4-STB-16-0067-3 to the Commission on December 20, 2016. The amendment submittal was deemed complete on March 30, 2017, after the complete submittal of additional information requested by Commission staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Unspoiled Beaches Nearby. Just Because I Cannot Go There To
    Locklin, Linda@Coastal Flom: Christine Fimbres <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 201.9 l-2:28 PM To: Coastal Hollister Ranch Subject: Hollister For 70 years I have loved the beach since going as a child to contemplate the beauty and meaning in life--especially impactful was gazing at the horizon meeting the sea. Now I view most beaches in sorrow at the wanton trashing by my compatriots. Look anywhere, the carelessness and filth spread by so many people is undeniable, despite Susan Jordan's claim that "we all care about the environmentrr. The Coastal Commission may "have decades of experience" protecting "balance" at Big Sur precisely because it is so remote. To describe the public's activities at Joshua Tree and Elsinore is NOT demonization, -iust admission of obvious fact. Perhaps the Coastal Comm thinks those "elites" at Hollister are "no better than any other human being," but they are obviously cleaner and better stewards than the general public. I am grateful there are still some unspoiled beaches nearby. Just because I cannot go there to "enjoy" (with all the traipsing about involved), the idea that such places exist: it is reassuring and nourishing to the spirit. I Tlre Crty d{h Prolecl v.l8r.qlyf r0rrirclL:a.cr,l April 15,2019 John Ainsworth, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission Sam Schuchat, Execulive Officer, California State Coastal Conservancy Jennifer Lucchesi, Executive Officer, California State Lands Commission Lisa Mangat, Director, California Department of Parks and Recreation V ia e m a il Hol I iste r@coa sta l.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora and Fauna Values
    includes many endemic species – those species found nowhere else in the world except for within one specific region. Roughly 30 endemic animal As part of one of the top 35 global biodiversity hotspots, species and 35 endemic plant species are found in the Santa Barbara Santa Barbara County is home to a remarkable array of region.6 Many have evolved in this area of California because of geograph- species, habitats and transition zones which stem from the ic isolation, rare soil substrates, and limited mobility. Examples of endemic regions unique mix of topography and climate.1 The species in the County include the Lompoc kangaroo rat, kinsel oak, and the FLORA AND County is unique within the California Floristic Province Santa Barbara jewel flower. Many other species are endemic to our region (the biodiversity hotspot the County is in) as it has fewer of California but are found outside the County including the Mount Pinos FAUNA developed or altered natural landscapes than other parts chipmunk, black bellied slender salamander and Cristina’s timema. of the hotspot; this adds to the value for conservation within Santa Barbara County. Vegetation provides habitat and home for the many unique and common animal species in the County, and varies greatly from north to Vegetation communities and species from California’s south, east to west, and often from valley to valley. Of the 31 vegetation Central Coast and South Coast, the Sierra Nevada, and the macrogroups found in California, 19 are found within Santa Barbara San Joaquin Valley can all be found locally due to conver- County.9 Chaparral is the most common vegetation type in the County gence of four ecoregions within the County: Southern and covers much of the upland watersheds where it also serves as a California Coast, Southern California Mountains and Central Coast riverine, riparian ecosystems, and wetlands provide some of natural buffer against erosion.
    [Show full text]