LOS ANGELES OFFICE

Protecting endangered species and wild places through science, policy, education, and environmental law

-

June 9, 2006

Joan Wolff, Project Planner

City of Fullerton

Development Services Department

303 W. Commonwealth Avenue BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Fullerton, CA 92832-1775 joanw@ci.fullerton.ca.us

Re: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#1997051056; West Coyote

Hills Specific Plan and Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve; Amendment No. 8 to

Coyote Hills West Master Specific Plan 2-A.

Dear Ms. Wolff:

The following comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report

SCH#1997051056; West Coyote Hills Specific Plan and Robert E. Ward Nature

Preserve; Amendment No. 8 to Coyote Hills West Master Specific Plan 2-A. (the

“RDEIR”) are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”).

The Center is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the protection of

native species and their habitats in the Western Hemisphere through science, policy,

and environmental law. The Center has over 22,000 members throughout California and

the western United States, including residents of Los Angeles and Orange Counties in

the vicinity of the West Coyote Hills area.

The RDEIR indicates that the proposed project site has high natural resource values

based on the estimated 48-60 pairs of California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica

californica) that are known to occur on the proposed project site and the presence of

designated California gnatcatcher critical habitat. In 2003, the Center submitted

comments on the DEIR for the previous version of this project. We remain concerned

that the proposed measures to mitigate the project’s impacts to gnatcatchers are wholly

inadequate – indeed, gnatcatcher-specific mitigation discussion included in the 2003 EIR

has been removed. The revisions to the DEIR have not rendered it legally adequate

under CEQA.

In addition, we remain concerned that the project’s impacts on other biological

resources, air quality, and climate change have still not been adequately addressed in

the RDEIR. Our previous comments are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated in these

comments by reference.

Tucson • Phoenix • Joshua Tree • Los Angeles • San Diego • San Francisco • Pinos Altos •

Portland • Washington,DC

PMB 447, 8033 Sunset Blvd • Los Angeles, CA 90046

Phone: 323-654-5943 • Fax: 323-650-4620

ianderson@biologicaldiversity org • www biologicaldiversity org

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 2 of 22

The RDEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Impacts to Biological

Resources

(a) The RDEIR Fails to Include a Number of Essential Plans for Review and

Therefore Fails Mitigate Significant Impacts to Biological Resources

The document acknowledges that wetlands and waters of the United States, as well

as jurisdictional water regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game will

be impacted by the project as proposed. However, mitigation ratios, location of

mitigation, mitigation plans, success criteria, and performance milestones are not

included in the document. Their absence precludes our review of adequacy for the

significant impacts that will be occurring to these precious and rare resources in

southern California. As of 1989, southern California had already lost over 98% of our

wetlands (Bowler 1989). Undoubtedly more have been lost in the intervening 17

years. The EIR states, “Ideally, the project will result in a no net loss of wetland

habitat (acreage) and habitat value.” Pg 4.12-48. Specific guarantees and

contingency plans need to be included to assure that the goal of no net loss of

wetlands is achieved – the mere precatory language that “ideally” the no net loss

goal will be met is insufficient under CEQA.

The RDEIR acknowledges that raptors (and coyotes) will sustain direct, indirect and

cumulative impacts from the proposed project. The RDEIR relies on a “raptor

enhancement plan” to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However

this plan is not included for review in the RDEIR. Therefore we cannot evaluate if the

impact is adequately addressed. An issue of concern regarding raptors is the

recommendation (not requirement) that “The use of poisons shall be discouraged”.

The effects of rodenticides on predators (including some raptors currently living on

the site) are well documented. We support sustaining all the predators in the area,

and believe that a requirement to preclude the use of poisons is essential not only for

coyotes, but for the federally protected birds. Such a measure should be required for

future reserve managers and included as an enforceable condition in the homeowner

CC&Rs.

The RDEIR acknowledges that significant impacts may occur to the intermediate

mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius). Mitigation measures proposed

to reduce impacts to a less than significant level include the preparation and

implementation of a mitigation plan. The RDEIR needs to include the plan, so that

we can evaluate its adequacy. In addition to the other recommendations (which are

confusing as written) in the RDEIR on what will be in the plan, we also request that

maintenance and monitoring requirements be clearly identified as well as success

criteria. The mitigation recommendations in the RDEIR rely on transplantation of the

bulbs of the intermediate mariposa lily and seed collection and sowing – notoriously

unsuccessful strategies for most rare plants, resulting in a less than 10% success

rate (D. Hickson, CDFG, personal communication). In the absence of any mitigation

plan for review, we recommend the acquisition and conservation in perpetuity of

extant intermediate mariposa lily populations.

The RDEIR acknowledges that 11 of the 51 pairs of gnatcatchers will be “taken”, but

indicates that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) believes that the project will

not result in long-term impacts to the gnatcatcher. We contend that the

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 3 of 22

restoration/revegetation/enhancement plan for coastal sage scrub (CSS) is an

essential component in achieving the revolving CSS habitats upon which the

resource agencies are relying. No restoration/revegetation/enhancement plan is

included in the RDEIR. On the contrary, the RDEIR deletes many of the detailed

mitigation measures and performance standards that were specified for CSS

restoration and management in the previous EIR. Therefore we cannot evaluate if

the on-going impacts will actually result in no net loss to the gnatcatchers.

(b) The RDEIR Fails to Note the Regional Uniqueness of the Proposed Project Site

The RDEIR goes to great lengths to downplay the ecological value of the project site for

wildlife and makes sweeping generalizations without scientific support to avoid the

requirement to mitigate for impacts to the special-status resources that occur on the

project site. These generalizations are not supported by scientific evidence in the

RDEIR. For instance, while the RDEIR acknowledges that the proposed project site

includes federally designated Critical Habitat for the California gnatcatcher, and states

that 109.2 acres of coastal sage scrub within this designated critical habitat will be

permanently impacted, it is not clear how that impact will be mitigated. According to the

Endangered Species Act, (“ESA”),

The term “critical habitat” for a threatened or endangered species

means-

(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the

species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section

4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I)

essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require

special management considerations or protection; and

(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the

species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section

4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the species.

16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A).

“Conservation” is defined the ESA as:

the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to

bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which

the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.

Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities

associated with scientific resources management such as research,

census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,

propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary

case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be

otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

16 U.S.C. § 1532(3).

It is clear that the purpose of critical habitat designation is to facilitate recovery of listed

species, not merely to ensure the survival of individuals or occurrences within a

fragmented and disturbed landscape of unsuitable or destroyed habitat. Recent court

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 4 of 22

decisions have supported this definition (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004); Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,

245 F.3d 434, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2001); Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S.

Department of the Interior, 275 F. Supp.2d 1136, 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). Other cases

have stressed the requirement for separate consultation regarding adverse modification

and jeopardy (e.g. Greenpeace et al. vs. National Marine Fisheries Service et al., 55

F.Supp.2d 1248 July 13, 1999). Accordingly, the RDEIR must explain how the loss of

109.2 acres of designated gnatcatcher critical habitat promotes the recovery of the

species.

Typically a mitigation ratio (3:1 or 5:1) for critical habitat is identified, either onsite or off-

site. Considering the constraints of the West Coyote Hills site, both on-site and off-site

mitigation is appropriate, yet only on-site revegetation/enhancement is proposed in the

DEIR. Critical habitat is based on the recovery standard for species, and a mitigation

ratio of 1:1 simply does not allow for species recovery.

The document also does not indicate except on Exhibit 4.12-3 that the proposed project

site sustains the greatest number of California gnatcatchers left in southern Los Angeles

and northern Orange Counties, and may be integral to maintaining the genetic integrity

of the northern Orange County populations (USFWS 2004). Clearly, the regional

significance of this population has not been adequately addressed in the RDEIR.

(c) The Onsite CSS and Gnatcatcher Preserves are Highly Fragmented and Do Not

Effectively Mitigate the Project’s Direct and Indirect Impacts

The RDEIR proposes to mitigate the loss of a large, contiguous area of CSS that serves

as gnatcatcher habitat by the creation of an on-site reserve that is located largely on the

perimeter of the site. The reserve design fails to incorporate essential conservation

biology tenets. It is infrequent that we have the opportunity to conserve the largest

population of California gnatcatchers in a region (i.e. regionally significant population),

and to guarantee that it will not go extinct in the future. The reserve design does not

consider many of the basic conservation biology tenets that need to be incorporated into

a reserve that will actually function. They include (Noss et al, 1997):

• Large blocks with large populations is best – small blocks with small populations

creates a number of challenging issues, including more opportunity for invasion

by exotics, greater vulnerability to extinction as a result of deterministic or

stochastic events, and a predictable decrease in genetic variation within the

populations;

• Contiguous blocks of habitat are better than fragmented blocks – the current

reserve design is a series of small fragmented areas;

• Small area to edge ratio for the reserve;

• Contiguity of preservation areas – the closer together the blocks of habitat are,

the better;

• Interconnected blocks are better than isolated blocks;

• Blocks of habitat that are not roaded or otherwise inaccessible to humans are

better;

• In the specific case of the California gnatcatcher, conservation areas need to

allow for movement of the populations around within the conservation areas;

• Boundaries need to be determined by reference to ecology, not politics;

• Reserves need to be surrounded by lands with low-intensity development,

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 5 of 22

because they fare better than reserves surrounded by high-intensity

development, such as housing subdivisions.

Additional concerns that we request to be included in the Conservation Plans include:

• A map of the current known locations of sensitive resources juxtaposed with the

proposed reserve areas;

• Quantitative evaluation of the number of individuals in the current known

locations;

• Assurances that the reserves are firmly protected and adequately managed;

• Specific commitments to and funding for management of the preserves;

• Performance standards for the preserves;

• Monitoring of the rare populations to evaluate trends;

• No fire clearance/fuel modification zones are to be included in the preserve

areas.

• Invasive species control plan be included.

While the RDEIR briefly discusses reserve management and funding, detailed

performance standards for reserve management are not included. Although the

previous EIR contained more detailed information indicating how the reserve areas

would be managed and restored, this information, which is essential for fulfilling

CEQA’s informational requirements and for understanding how the reserves will

mitigate for the project’s direct and indirect gnatcatcher impacts, has been deleted.

(d) The RDEIR Relies on a Biological Opinion that is Based on Outdated Information

and Fails to Consider Cumulative Impacts to Gnatcatchers.

The RDEIR relies on the Biological Opinion (“BO”) issued by USFWS to the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers for the project in 2004 to suggest that the project’s gnatcatcher

impacts will be fully mitigated. The BO, however, is based on the 1998 gnatcatcher

surveys of the site and thus substantially understates the site’s conservation value and

the magnitude of the project’s impact. The BO and the RDEIR also fail to account for

cumulative gnatcatcher losses. Neither the BO nor the RDEIR quantify the take of

gnatcatchers that has been permitted for other projects in the region or assess the

significance of the site’s gnatcatcher population in light of the destruction of thousands of

acres of CSS in fires in 2003 and 2005. Please see our previous discussion of the

cumulative take of gnatcatchers authorized for other projects and the cumulative loss of

CSS associated with the fires of 2003 contained on pages 4 and 5 of our 2003

comments, attached as Exhibit A.

In our previous comments, we documented that the USFWS had authorized take of 783

gnatcatcher pairs via individual biological opinions, and at least 253 additional pairs

through the “Proposed Special Rule to Authorize Take of the California Gnatcatcher”

pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA and the California Natural Communities

Conservation Planning (“NCCP”) process. We specifically noted that incidental take has

been authorized for at least 319 pairs of gnatcatchers in Orange County since the

species was listed in 1993. These figures do not include reflect most of the incidental

take authorized in 2003 and obviously do not include additional take authorized since

2003. The RDEIR, however, fails to consider the cumulative take of gnatcatchers.

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 6 of 22

(e) The RDEIR Fails to Evaluate and Mitigate Significant Impacts to Biological

Resources

A number of large and small animals are currently using the site as habitat and

movement corridors. The RDEIR recognizes that the nearest open space is the “East

Coyote Hills approximately two miles to the east and the Puente Hills are located

approximately three miles to the north of the site” (Pg 4.12-20). The RDEIR argues

without scientific reference that “Although these areas of habitat may be appropriate for

most avian species to move between them, California gnatcatchers are unlikely to travel

those distances based on the current understanding of the species”. However, the

Biological Opinion (FWS 2004) states that “Both of these areas [East Coyote Hills and

the Puente Hills] are within the potential dispersal distance of juveniles, and occasional

emigration from the West Coyote Hills to these populations likely occurs (Bailey and

Mock 1998). In addition, the 2003 proposed critical habitat designation for the

gnatcatcher states that gnatcatchers are capable of dispersing up to 14 miles through

highly fragmented or disturbed habitat, including remnant coastal sage scrub habitat that

occurs along highways or utility corridors, and riparian areas. 68 Fed. Reg. 20228,

20230, attached as Exhibit B.

 This may be important for genetic exchange among the fairly small and isolated

populations that remain in northern Orange County” (BO, pg 12). The impact to wildlife

connectivity and migration corridors especially for the federally threatened California

gnatcatcher is dismissed as nonexistent in the RDEIR. CEQA requires the evaluation of

the proposed project on biological resources as they currently exist.

The impacts to the riparian and waters of the U.S. is incomplete. While the RDEIR

proposes a mitigation strategy, the detailed plan of how the mitigation is achieved

(location of mitigation lands, “restoration” plan, etc.) needs to be included in the RDEIR

as well. Additionally, the “conserved” wetlands will be affected by the proposed

development due to habitat fragmentation, introduction of invasive species, introduction

of domestic pets, and runoff of sediment and pollutants, including domestic fertilizers,

herbicides, and pesticides, yet no analysis of the effects is included in the RDEIR. We

request that that analysis be included.

(f) The RDEIR Fails to Address the Impacts to Biological Resources From Fire

Protection Activities

No discussion of fire clearance/thinning is discussed in the RDEIR. The RDEIR does

state that “brush management zones and most interim disturbed areas adjacent to roads

would be revegetated with southern cactus scrub.” (Pg. 4.12-43) While this type

conversion to southern cactus scrub (“SCS”) will benefit the cactus wren, it will decrease

the habitat for the California gnatcatcher. We request that all brush management/road

sides be included in the “footprint” of the proposed project, not in the preserve areas.

The increased size of the “footprint” to include the brush management/road sides need

to be identified, analyzed for impacts to the resources and mitigated appropriately. We

have generally outlined a 100 foot area around the development that is proposed for this

type conversion to SCS (See Attachment 1). Because of the large edge to area ratio of

the development, the edges that will be converted are significant in acreage and need to

be evaluated for their biological impact. The RDEIR fails to include this analysis. In fact

some of the coastal sage scrub corridors will be eliminated as habitat for California

gnatcatchers based on the proposed action. Additionally, no fire clearance/thinning

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 7 of 22

should occur within the boundaries of any open-space, natural area or wildlife movement

corridor, but should occur and be analyzed as part of the proposed project activities,

because of the degradation that fire clearance/thinning activities.

The RDEIR Fails to Evaluate Feasible Mitigation Measures for the Project’s

Significant Air Quality Impacts

The RDEIR concludes, even after implementation of all mitigation measures, that the

project could result in significant, unavoidable impacts due to construction emissions of

reactive organic gases (“ROG”) that contribute to ozone formation, oxides of nitrogen

(“NOx”), and carbon monoxide (CO), and will result in significant unavoidable operational

emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO.

Additional feasible mitigation measures are available for all of these impacts.

Construction impacts could be further reduced by requiring the use of low-sulfur diesel

fuel in addition to the particulate traps required by MM 4.4-1 and MM 4.4-4.

For operational impacts, the RDEIR must consider design features that would avoid or

minimize the air emissions. The project is located in an area that is ideally suited for

rooftop solar generating installations or tiles. A requirement that some or all units

include generating installations or tiles could reduce or eliminate the project’s operational

air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts by reducing the local or regional

emissions associated with power generation. The RDEIR provides no indication that this

measure was considered. Based on the area’s climate, the effectiveness of this

measure may be readily determined. In addition, based on the net savings over the life

of equipment and the subsidies and other financial incentives available for the

installation of such equipment, this measure is feasible as that term is understood in

CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.)

Additional feasible mitigation is also available for all project-related emissions in the form

of offset credits. The RDEIR should consider the availability and economics of

purchasing emissions credits to offset some or all of the air quality impacts that are

described as “significant and unavoidable.” Without additional consideration of these

additional feasible mitigation measures, there is no basis for the RDEIR’s conclusion that

the residual air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable.

In our comments on the previous EIR, we noted that the EIR failed to address the issue

of nitrogen deposition associated with project air emissions. We noted that nitrogen

deposition is impacting vegetation in southern California and in particular causing losses

of coastal sage scrub. See attached Exhibit C. The RDEIR does not address the

project’s direct and cumulative contributions to nitrogen deposition, even though

nitrogen deposition may contribute to further harm to California gnatcatchers.

The RDEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Contribution to

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(a) Global Warming is one of the Greatest Problems Facing California and the World

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

6/9/06

Page 8 of 22

Global warming, or climate change, is caused by society’s production of

greenhouse gases, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels for energy. These gases

accumulate in the atmosphere and decrease the amount of solar radiation that is

reflected back into space, warming the earth’s climate much like the interior of a

greenhouse. The three most important greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane,

and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 85% of total emissions,

and methane and nitrous oxide together account for almost an additional 14%. Because

of the persistence and mixing of these gases in the atmosphere, emissions anywhere in

the world, including those associated with this project, impact the climate everywhere

equally. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions produced in California will

impact not only California, but the rest of the world as well.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) has concluded that the global

average temperature has risen by approximately 0.6° C ± 0.2 C during the 20th Century

(IPCC 2001). There is an international scientific consensus that most of the warming

observed has been caused by human activities (ACIA 2004; IPCC 2001), and that it is

“likely”1 that it is largely due, specifically, to emissions of greenhouse gases (IPCC

2001). Carbon dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide concentrations, and temperature over

the last 1,000 years are correlated (ACIA 2004). Mean temperatures during the 20th

century were the highest in 1,000 years (Albritton et al. 2001). Global climate has

changed in other ways as well. For example, precipitation has increased by 0.5 to 1%

per decade in the 20th century over most mid- and high latitudes of the Northern

Hemisphere continents, and to a lesser degree over the tropical land areas in the

northern hemisphere (IPCC 2001).

Global average temperature increases mask significant regional variation. Due to a

number of positive feedback mechanisms, warming in the Arctic has been and will be

greater and more rapid than in the rest of the world (ACIA 2004). Warming in the Arctic

is in many ways a harbinger of what is to come in other areas. Changes already

observed in some areas of the Arctic dwarf global averages. In extensive areas of the

Arctic, air temperature over land has increased by as much as 5° C (9° F) over the 20th

century (Anisimov et al. 2001).

Global warming will continue and accelerate if greenhouse gas emissions are not

reduced. All climate models predict significant warming in this century, with variation

only as to the rate and magnitude of the projected warming (ACIA 2004). Determining

the degree of future climate change requires consideration of two major factors: (1) the

level of future global emissions of greenhouse gases, and (2) the response of the

climate system to these emissions (“climate sensitivity”)(ACIA 2004a).

Because hard data are not available for events that have not yet occurred, the future

level of society’s greenhouse gas emissions must be projected. The IPCC has produced

a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (“SRES”) (Naki_enovi_ et al. 2000) that

describes a range of possible emissions scenarios based on how societies, economies,

and energy technologies may evolve, in order to study a range of possible scenarios

(ACIA 2004a; Albritton et al. 2001).

1

 In the IPCC 2001 report, “likely” means a 66-90% chance that a conclusion is true

(IPCC 2001a).

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 9 of 22

Climate models make different assumptions regarding how various aspects of the

climate system will respond to increased greenhouse gas concentrations and warming

temperatures. These differing assumptions are expressed as climate sensitivity, defined

as the equilibrium response of global mean temperature to doubling levels of

atmospheric carbon dioxide (Stainforth et al. 2005). The IPCC (2001) used climate

sensitivities of 1.3-5.8K for projections of warming from 1990-2100 (Stainforth et al.

2005).

Using the SRES emissions scenarios and the world’s leading climate models, the IPCC

predicts that the global average temperature will warm between 1.4 and 5.8°C by the

end of this century. Warming will be greater in the Arctic, where the annual average

temperatures will rise across the entire Arctic, with increases of approximately 3-5° C

over the land areas and up to 7° C over the oceans. Winter temperatures are projected

to rise even more significantly, with increases of approximately 4-7° C over land areas

and approximately 7-10° C over oceans (ACIA 2004a). Year-to-year variability is also

projected to be greater in the Arctic than in other regions (ACIA 2004a).

(b) Warming Projections Likely to be Revised Substantially Upwards

For a number of reasons, IPCC (2001) and ACIA (2004) projections may be significant

underestimates of the amount and rate of warming. First, the planet is already

committed to an additional 1° F warming from the excess solar energy already in our

climate system, due to lag time in the climate response (Hansen 2005). Second, actual

worldwide greenhouse gas emissions may be on the high end or above the range of the

IPCC scenarios. All scenarios utilized by the IPCC assume that energy use will shift

away from fossil fuels to a greater percentage of sustainable energy sources and that

worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will begin to decline during this century (IPCC

2001). Yet the most recent energy projections show that if current policies continue,

worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will be 52% higher in 2030 than they are today

(IEA 2005).

Third, climate sensitivity may be substantially greater than the levels used by IPCC

(2001). Results from the climateprediction.net experiment indicate that much larger

climate sensitivities of up to 11.5K are possible (Stainforth et al. 2005). Chapin et al.

(2005) studied the warming amplification caused by the expansion of shrub and tree

cover in the Arctic and resulting increase in solar absorption. This amplification could be

as much as two to seven times (Chapin et al. 2005), and is not accounted for in the

climate models used in IPCC (2001) (Foley 2005).

Recent data on the unexpectedly fast rate of warming in the Arctic also reinforces the

likelihood that the IPCC (2001) projections will need to be revised upwards. Overpeck et

al. (2005) concluded that the Arctic is on a trajectory towards an ice-free summer state

within this century, a state not witnessed in at least the last million years (Overpeck et al.

2005). These scientists conclude that there are few, if any processes or feedbacks

within the arctic system that are capable of altering the trajectory toward this ice-free

summer state. In September, 2005, scientists reported a new record Arctic sea-ice

minimum for the month of September (NSIDC 2005). These scientists called the sea ice

reduction “stunning” and concluded that Arctic sea ice is likely on an accelerating, long-

term decline (NSIDC 2005).

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 10 of 22

(c) A Pattern of Increased Weather Variability and Extremes and Possible Abrupt

Changes

Global warming consists of more than just increases in global average temperature. In

2001 the IPCC predicted a 90-99% chance of the following weather changes:

• Higher maximum temperature and more hot days over nearly all land areas;

• Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all

land areas;

• Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas;

• Increase of heat index over land areas;

• More intense precipitation events.

Albritton et al. 2001.

The IPCC also predicted a 66-90% chance of the following:

• Increased summer continental drying and associated risk of drought;

• Increased in tropical cyclone (hurricane) peak wind intensities;

• Increase in tropical cyclone mean and peak precipitation intensities.

Id.

Increased intensity of precipitation events due to global warming has long been

predicted by climate models and remains a consistent result of the most advanced

modeling efforts (Cubasch and Meehl 2001). In global simulations for future climate,

extreme precipitation events over North America are predicted to occur twice as often

(Cubasch and Meehl 2001).

Greenlandic ice cores indicate that the climate can change very abruptly. Scientists

caution that thresholds may be reached that trigger rapid and extreme climatic changes

that are difficult to predict but could be devastating. Examples include the shut down of

the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, which transfers heat from the equatorial

regions to the Arctic, which could plunge northern Europe into a new ice age. The more

rapid melting of the Greenlandic ice sheet, once thought to be several centuries away,

could trigger this impact and also result in global sea level rise of up to six meters,

completely eliminating many coastal areas. As in the case of the shift to an ice-free

Arctic summer, scientists warn that we may be very close to crossing thresholds of rapid

climate change from which there is no return.

(d) The Impacts of Global Warming

The impacts of global warming, once envisioned to be experienced by future

generations, are already upon us, bringing profound climactic and ecological changes,

great loss of human life, and likely extinction for many of the planet’s non-human

species. As written recently in the New England Journal of Medicine

Since [the release of the Third Assessment Report in] 2001, we’ve

learned substantially more. The pace of atmospheric warming and the

accumulation of carbon dioxide are quickening; polar and alpine ice is

melting at rates not thought possible several years ago; the deep ocean is

heating up, and circumpolar winds are accelerating; and warming in the

lower atmosphere is retarding the repair of the protective “ozone shield” in

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 11 of 22

the stratosphere….Given the current rate of carbon dioxide build-up and

the projected degree of global warming, we are entering uncharted seas.

As we survey these seas, we can see some of the health effects that may

like ahead if the increase in very extreme weather events continues.

Heat waves like the one that hit Chicago in 1995, killing some 750 people

and hospitalizing thousands, have become more common. Hot, humid

nights, which have become more frequent with global warming, magnify

the effects.

Epstein 2005.

In 2002, more than 1,000 people died in a spring heat wave in India (Gelbspan 2004). In

the spring of 2003, 1,400 people died in another heat wave in India and Pakistan. Also

in 2003, a summer heat wave in Europe killed between 21,000-35,000 people (Epstein

2005).

In 1998, Hurricane Mitch dropped six feet of rain on Central America in three days, and

was followed by soaring incidences of malaria, dengue fever, cholera, and leptospirosis

(Epstein 2005). In 2000, after rain and three cyclones hit Mozambique over a six week

time period, the incidence of malaria rose by five times (Epstein 2005). In June, 2001,

Houston suffered the single most expensive storm in modern history when tropical storm

Allison dropped thirty-five inches of rain in one week, resulting in $6 billion in damages

(Gelbspan 2004). In November, 2001, record flooding killed more than 1,000 people in

Algeria (Gelbspan 2004). Also in 2002, more than 12 million people were displaced by

severe flooding in South Asia (Gelbspan 2004).

In the Eastern United States, the effect of sea level rise over the last century (primarily

from thermal expansion as the oceans warm) has also exacerbated the beach erosion

and flooding from modern storms that would have been less damaging in the past

(Folland and Karl 2001). In August, 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed hundreds and

destroyed the city of New Orleans (Epstein 2005). Katrina was quickly followed by Rita,

and then Wilma, putting 2005 on track to setting a new record for hurricane season

destruction.

While it is may not be possible to link individual episodes to global warming, this overall

pattern of increasingly violent weather is very clearly linked to human-caused global

warming. But even more subtle, gradual changes can profoundly damage public health

(Epstein 2005). During the past two decades, the prevalence of asthma in the United

States has quadrupled, at least in part because of climate-related factors (Epstein 2005).

Increased levels of plant pollen and soil fungi may also be involved, as experiments

have shown that ragweed grown in twice the ambient levels of carbon dioxide produces

60% more pollen (Epstein 2005). High carbon dioxide levels also promote the growth

and spore production of some soil fungi, and diesel particles then help to deliver these

aeroallergens deep into human lungs (Epstein 2005).

Widening social inequities and changes in biodiversity caused by global warming have

also contributed to the resurgence of many infectious diseases (Epstein 2005). Global

warming is credited with the current spread of Lyme disease, as well as malaria,

hantavirus, and West Nile virus (Epstein 2005). Floods are also frequently followed by

disease clusters, as downpours can drive rodents from burrows, deposit mosquito

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 12 of 22

breeding sites, foster fungus growth in houses, and flush pathogens, nutrients, and

chemicals into waterways (Epstein 2005). Droughts also weaken trees’ defenses

against infestations and promote wildfires, which can cause injuries, burns, respiratory

illness, and deaths (Epstein 2005).

Shifting weather patterns are jeopardizing water quality and quantity in many countries,

where groundwater systems are overdrawn (Epstein 2005). Most montane ice fields are

predicted to disappear during this century, further exacerbating water shortages in many

areas of the world (Epstein 2005).

An even greater threat to human health comes from illnesses affecting wildlife, livestock,

crops, forests, and marine organisms (Epstein 2005). One recent report found that 60%

of resources examined, from fisheries to fresh water, are already in decline or being

used in unsustainable ways (Epstein 2005). This is a grim prognosis indeed as global

population continues to rise even as global warming accelerates.

As discussed further below, global warming will also have profound impacts on the

earth’s biological diversity and threatens many thousands of species. The primary

prevention and mitigation of all of these climate impacts is to reduce the nation’s energy

use and halt the extraction, mining, transport, refining and combustion of fossil fuels

(Epstein 2005). Experts believe that a substantial reduction in energy use would have

innumerable health and environmental benefits along with stabilizing the climate

(Epstein 2005).

(e) The Impacts of Global Warming on California

California is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of global warming. The following

impacts will be experienced in California on both an acute and chronic basis:

• A diminishing Sierra snowpack of up to 90 percent during the next 100 years

threatens California’s water supply and quality as the Sierra accounts for almost

all of the surface water storage in the state.

• Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4°F, as expected under the higher emission

scenarios, will cause a 25 to 35 percent increase in the number of days

Californians are exposed to ozone pollution in most urban areas. This will offset

many of the state’s efforts to reduce pollution. Temperature increases are likely

to mean an increase in heat-related deaths. Children, the elderly, and minority

and low-income communities are at greatest risk.

• Potential impacts from limited water storage, increasing temperatures, and salt

water in the levees would threaten this industry and its economic contribution to

the state. Direct threats to the structural integrity of the state’s levee system

would also have immense implications for the state’s fresh water supply, food

supply, and overall economic prosperity.

• Erosion of our coastlines and sea water intrusion into the state’s delta and levee

systems may result from a 4- to 33-inch rise in sea level during the next 100

years. This will further exacerbate flooding in vulnerable regions.

• Pest infestation and increasing temperatures would make the state’s forest

resources more vulnerable to fires. Large and intense fires threaten native

species, increase pollution, and can cause economic losses.

• Increasing temperatures will boost electricity demand, especially in the hot

summer season. By 2020 this would translate to a 1 to 3 percent increase in

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 13 of 22

demand resulting in potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in extra energy

expenditures (California EPA).

The precise nature of the impacts over the next decades will depend upon whether

worldwide total greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase at current rates, or

whether the current rate of increase is slowed, and emissions actually reduced.

Scientists model future impacts based on different emissions scenarios.

Under a low emissions scenario, by the end of this century heatwaves and extreme heat

in Los Angeles will quadruple in frequency and heat-related mortality will increase two to

three times (Hayhoe et al. 2004). Alpine and subalpine forests are reduced by 50-75%,

and Sierra snowpack is reduced 30-70% (Hayhoe et al. 2004). Under a higher

emissions scenario, heatwaves in Los Angeles will be six to eight times more frequent,

with heat-related excess mortality increasing five to seven times (Hayhoe et al. 2004).

Alpine and subalpine forests would be reduced by 75-90%, and snowpack would decline

74-90%, with impacts on runoff and streamflow that, combined with projected declines in

winter precipitation, could fundamentally disrupt California’s water rights system (Hayhoe

et al. 2004).

(f) The Impacts of Global Warming on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species

Climate change is a leading threat to the California and the world’s biological diversity.

Species have already been profoundly impacted by the worldwide average temperature

increase of 1 °Fahrenheit (0.6 °Centigrade) since the start of the Industrial Revolution

(IPCC 2001). Yet the warming experienced to date is small compared to the 2.5- 10.4

°F (1.4-5.8 °C) or more of warming projected for this century. The ways in which climate

change threatens species are varied and sometimes complex. Below we present an

overview of impacts observed to date and projections for the future.

Scientists have predicted three categories of impacts from global warming: (1) earlier

timing of spring events, (2) extension of species’ range poleward or upward in elevation,

and (3) a decline in species adapted to cold temperatures and an increase in species

adapted to warm temperatures (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). A recent survey of

more than 30 studies covering about 1600 hundred species summarized empirical

observations in each of these three categories and found that approximately one half of

the species were already showing significant impacts, and 85-90% of observed changes

were in the direction predicted (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). The statistical

probability of this pattern occurring by chance, as opposed to being caused by climate

change, is less than one in a billion (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004).

Changes in the life cycles and behaviors of organisms such as plants blooming and

birds laying their chicks earlier in the spring were some of the first phenomena to be

observed. These changes may not be detrimental to all species, but depending on the

timing and interactions between species, may be very harmful.

The Edith’s checkerspot butterfly, which occurs along the west coast of north America,

has been severely impacted by such changes in the lifecycles of organisms. The Edith’s

checkerspot’s host plant, Plantago erecta, now develops earlier in the spring while the

timing of caterpillar hatching has not changed. Caterpillars now hatch on plants that

have completed their lifecycle and dried up, instead of on young healthy plants

(Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). The tiny caterpillars are unable to move far enough to

CBD comments on WCH-RDEIR

Page 14 of 22

find other food and therefore starve to death (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). Because

of this, many Edith’s checkerspot butterfly populations have become extinct. Many

more populations have been lost in the southern portion of the species’ range than in the

northern portion, resulting in a net shift of the range of the species northward and

upwards in elevation. All these changes have occurred in response to “only” 1.3°

Farenheit regional warming (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004).

The southernmost subspecies, the Quino checkerspot butterfly, already listed as

endangered under the Endangered Species Act due to habitat destruction from urban

development, has disappeared from nearly 80% of otherwise suitable habitat areas due

to global warming (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). The Bay checkerspot and Taylor’s

checkerspot butterflies, also listed under the Endangered Species Act, have been

similarly impacted (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004).

Butterfly species are impacted in other ways as well. The northward expansion of the

treeline into alpine meadow butterfly habitat can impede dispersal, fragment habitat, and

increase mortality via butterfly collisions with the trees (Krajick 2004, Ross et al. 2005).

While theoretically some species can adapt by shifting their ranges in response to

climate change, species in many areas today, in contrast to migration patterns in

response to paleoclimatic warming, must move through a landscape that human activity

has rendered increasingly fragmented and inhospitable (Walther 2002). When species

cannot shift their ranges northward or to increased elevations in response to climate

warming, they will become extinct (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). Therefore, the least

mobile species will be the first to disappear.

The pika is a small, vegetarian relative of the rabbit, that is adapted to life on high,

treeless mountain peaks. Because pikas need cold, bare habitat, it is not surprising that

their numbers are plummeting all over the globe (Krajick 2004). Fossil evidence shows

that pikas once ranged widely over North America but their range has contracted to a

dwindling number of high peaks during the warm periods of the last 12,000 years

(Krajick 2004). Alpine species like the pika are unable to shift their ranges as warming

temperatures and advancing treelines, competitors, and predators impact their mountain

habitat (Krajick 2004). Pikas are further limited by their metabolic adaptation to their

cold habitat niche, which allows them to survive harsh winters but also causes them to

die from heat exhaustion at temperatures as low as 55° F (25.5° C) (Krajick 2004).

American pika populations at seven of twenty-five previously recorded localities

in the Great Basin of the western United States have disappeared in recent years

(Beever 2003). Based on work conducted in the late 1990s, researchers documented

t