LBAMspray.com
 LBAMspray.info

Defending the Central Coast from
BioChemical Aerial Spraying

Intro to LBAM

Donate

CASS Website

File Illness Report

 
CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act

Main Menu


Home


Calendar of Events


Intro to LBAM


Sign Petition


Audio & Video


Reports


CDFA Data


CEQA


Health Info


Spray Safety


Court Cases


Legal


USDA


EPA


Take Action


Flyers


Archive


Image Archives


Links


Contact Us


Join Email List


 


The California Environmental Quality Act
read the law


CEQA HandBook


CDFA's Notice of Prepration for an EIR


See Court Cases to read about CEQA law that was argued in Santa Cruz Courts.


----------------------------------------

The California Department of Food and Agriculture has scheduled public meetings to receive agency and public comments on the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Light Brown Apple Moth Eradication Program.
2/15/08 CDFA Announcement



Title 14. California Code of Regulations Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 7. EIR Process Scoping and public comments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


According to various documents I've seen and according to the County's MPA for the TPO on record (pages 1 through 2), the CDFA filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) from CEQA on October 3, citing the project was an "emergency project" under Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(4) and CEQA Guideline Article 18, section 15269(a). They also claimed it was exempt from CEQA under a "Categorical Exemption", citing CEQA Guideline Article 19, section 15308 (class 8)

Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(4) :

CEQA Guideline Article 18, section 15269(a) :

CEQA Guideline Article 19, section 15308 (class 8) :

What I've been curious about is them citing CEQA Guideline Article 18, section 15269(a) instead of citing CEQA Guideline Article 18, section 15269(c). At first, I thought it might have been a typo, but I have repeatedly seen 15269(a) cited instead of 15269(c). I don't know if that means anything important, but it seems very odd to me.

I would think that the project falls more under section 15269(c). And if so, to prove that it is not deserving of an "emergency" status (according to Title 14. California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 18, Section 15269, Subsection (c)), we would have to provide evidence that shows that this is a "long-term project" and that the LBAM has a very small probability of causing any damage in the near future... or "in the short-term".

We know that the project is long-term because they have indicated their intention is to spray at least throughout 2010. Furthermore, they have openly stated that they intend to spray every 30 days from March through November of every single year until two life cycles after the very last moth is found for as many years as it takes.

We also know that there has been no documented crop damage at all caused by the LBAM in California. Secretary Kawamura and other state officials openly admitted this fact at their public meeting in Santa Cruz on October 23, 2007. UC Davis scientists and others have estimated that the LBAM has been here for several years now. If it has been here for several years and has caused no crop damage, then I think that’s a good argument that it has a very small probability of causing any damage "in the short-term"... and therefore, is not deserving of an emergency status.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we all probably know by now, the County and City of Santa Cruz are approaching this from the angle that CEQA has been inappropriately bypassed, which is true. The basis of this argument is found in the California Code of Regulations:

Title 14. California Code of Regulations :


Article 19. Categorical Exemptions Sections 15300 to 15333

Article 18. Statutory Exemptions Section 15269. Emergency Projects The following emergency projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

(c) Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. This does not include long-term projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has a low probability of occurrence in the short-term. (see: http://www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/art18.html)

 

===================================================

 

The deadline: written comments must be received by the close of business Thursady, March 20, 2008 regarding the CFDA's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mail to: Jim Rains, California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, 1220 N St., Room A-316, Sacramento, CA 95814. Send emails to jrains@cdfa.ca.gov and a copy to eir@lbamspray.com The Form to submit comments /questions.

IMPORTANT:
Please send a copy of your submission to eir@lbamspray.com
so we can track if CDFA's addresses your concerns.

 

  
Search this website!
Powered by Google.

Heads Up!


Environmental Impact Report -EIR
Page with forms.



Scoping and public comment dates.



San Francisco Monday, February 25, 2008, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. San Francisco County Fair Building Auditorium Golden Gate Park 9th Avenue & Lincoln Way San Francisco , CA 94122

Oakland Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Ellis M Harris State Building Auditorium 1515 Clay St . Oakland , CA 94612

Monterey Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Monterey Peninsula College Lecture Forum 103 980 Fremont Street Monterey, CA 93940

 

Santa Cruz Thursday, February 21, 2008, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. University Inn & Conference Center Sierra & Dawn Room 611 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060

 


 

© 2007-2008 LBAMspray.com, LBAMspray.info - All Rights Reserved