Tuolumne County supervisors continue to align with building interests to gut the county’s oak woodland and wildlife policies
For 26 years, Tuolumne County has utilized positive wildlife protection policies for habitat areas targeted by new development. Back in 1987, CSERC’s director was part of the original county committee of developers, citizens, business interests, and others who collectively recommended Open Space protection and alternative mitigation measures. Most project applicants over the years have voluntarily chosen to use stream buffer setbacks, to protect prime oak habitat, and to use other county wildlife measures instead of the more expensive option of hiring a biological consultant.
But at the end of 2012, the current county board of supervisors enthusiastically obliged the local building industry by firmly rejecting a re-write of the Wildlife Handbook by county staff. The board chose instead to set up an industry-dominated committee to search out and remove county wildlife protection policies that may be more than the bare minimum required by State law.
A representative of the Central Sierra Audubon Society and CSERC staff have both attended the County committee sessions. We repeatedly heard representatives of the building industry and a Columbia area mine claim that there is no need to protect oaks and habitat on private land. “There are plenty of oaks and habitat on public land” is the mantra shared. In reality, most blue oak woodland is on private land. In addition, higher elevation public land doesn’t benefit species that thrive below snow level.
After more than a year of meetings, in March the committee voted for the County to press forward with plans to remove key protections for oak woodland, old growth oaks, valley oaks, and wildlife not clearly mandated to be protected as threatened, endangered, or special status.
In the months ahead, Tuolumne County supervisors, at the behest of the builders, plan to put the changes forward in a formal proposed action. The slate of new policies includes one that determines no mitigation is even necessary if a hired consultant simply claims that wiping out oak woodland isn’t an impact. CSERC will be looking closely at the legality of what is being proposed by the County