These interviews originally appeared in a book entitled The Future of UCSC and the LRDP by Lucas Barth, and are reprinted here with permission.
LRDP - Long Range Development Plan
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
CNR - Campus Natural Reserve
By Lucas Barth
Maggie Fusari is the Director of the UCSC Natural Reserve and Lecturer with Environmental Studies and Biology. She also served as a member of the LRDP Planning Committee.
What are some problems with the LRDP and EIR in relation to upper campus and the Campus Natural Reserve? (CNR)
The biggest problem with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is that it does only the minimum UCSC considers to be required at this time. Neither it nor the LRDP go into any detail about how the natural systems remaining after the development footprints are laid down will be protected. What the authors did with the EIR was follow the law, but to protect the natural reserve and the region's natural systems, more than the minimum required by law needs to be done.
I worry especially about the upper campus because it will be profoundly changed, especially in regard to the CNR. The purpose of the CNR is to provide an intact set of natural systems for teaching and research and for that we need to protect and preserve the natural systems so that they will continue to exist in as high a quality as possible.
For example, consider foot and bicycle traffic.
If there isn't funding for dealing with how people move around and through these areas they are going to degrade. For degradation not to take place there must be much more planning on how projects will be laid out, and how the reserve and natural lands will be protected from impacts (foot traffic, bike traffic, drainage, weeds, etc...). Fencing will most likely be needed to prevent loss and degradation of the habitats.
Most of the faculty advisors for the CNR want to see better protection and better information go into the planning. The faculty has a lot of information about the natural systems and it's not used in the planning. Outside consultants are used - some are of high quality, and some are not. The consultant's work gets incorporated in, and more sophisticated analyses by some of our faculty members don't.
The LRDP is an overall plan, not a project-specific plan, so the details associated with project layout aren't considered in the LRDP or EIR. That is problematic because projects get done piecemeal and the concept of cumulative impact doesn't get addressed in a systematic way. It continually gets brushed aside under the auspices of, one project's impacts are not significant so mitigation isn't required. Whereas, if you actually consider the fact that animals move from Gray Whale - Wilder Ranch State Parks through the upper campus of UCSC to Pogonip State Park, every little block that is put in the way of that movement has an impact, and the region becomes less user-friendly to wildlife.
I would like to see the projects designed so that there is an optimum preservation of natural habitat so that wildlife can move from protected area to protected area. I don't expect them not to build, but I feel that more care should be taken in how buildings are laid out and constructed within the natural systems. Natural systems are not just aesthetic considerations. I appreciate wanting things to look nice when you look out your office window, but wildlife don't see natural systems that way. They see safe places to move, good places to feed and live, and I'd like to hope they keep seeing that. I'm worrying that might not happen, that it's not a priority in project planning.
The way the consultants drew arrows for wildlife movement in their analysis of "corridors" for the EIR was capricious at best. It was not based on any data, and it wasn't based on any understanding of the current literature on wildlife corridors. One of the consultants said to me, "We don't have time to read that literature."
I think if we're going to use consultants we need to use ones that are up to date and able to prepare the best possible recommendation. If our goal is to retain wildlife movement you should have the best possible information available as to how to do that, and not just draw arrows because it looks like it ought to go there. It was sloppy work. Not all of the work was sloppy though, some of the work that a couple of other groups did on vegetation was quite good, and it improved our understanding of the different plant communities in upper campus.
The proposed loop road goes around the top of the seep zone, and won't be such a problem if it's built well and the drainage is handled well. The impact will be with the impermeable surfaces on it. Every bit of paving prevents infiltration of water into the soils, and if you put a lot of that into the upper watershed, whether you're thinking about the seep zone or the Moore Creek cave system, you're having a big impact on the hydrology. The watersheds, Upper Moore Creek and the seep zone, (which is mostly Jordan Gulch), are dependent on that infiltration through the sandy soils. So, why does everything need to be paved, why not have a surface that allows for better infiltration? Such surfaces are available these days.
Are there better options than building on upper campus?
There were different building-plan options identified in the LRDP process. One of the alternatives was to build on the lower campus and do infill. That was a gigantic aesthetic concern. The LRDP committee was split almost 50/50 as to whether to go with the lower campus or upper campus plan.
My point of view is that I would rather look at an ugly brick wall in front of my house and know that there was open habitat for wildlife somewhere else because I was looking at that wall. I very much supported the idea to put buildings on the lower campus because a campus is supposed to look like a built environment. That runs counter to what some people think about the aesthetics of this campus.
What about fire management for upper campus?
The upper campus is a very disturbed system to begin with; it is not a pristine wilderness. It was logged, burned, and utilized, the effects of you can still see. It is a disturbed system in recovery. In the chaparral, a disturbance regime plan is needed because it is dangerous in terms of wildfire risk and it is a vegetation community in Santa Cruz County that warrants protection. The road up there should be called "Fuel Load Road," not "Fuel Break Road." The deputy fire chief, the CNR, and others want to write a proposal for a good vegetation fire management program for the upper campus. A plan that will not only make UCSC safer in terms of the risk of wildfire (which it isn't) but also help regenerate the chaparral, which is a critically important habitat with one listed shrub species that is being taken over by the Douglas Fir trees. The LRDP or EIR does address fire management for upper campus though. The route from the loop road needs to connect to Empire Grade for safety reasons, for evacuation in case of fire.
By Lucas Barth
[At the time of this interview,] Sean Mcstay [was] the steward for the UCSC Campus Natural Reserve (CNR), Fort Ord, and Younger Lagoon Reserves. He [performed] the day-to-day caretaking activities for the reserves, such as maintenance, trail work, invasive plant control, and assisting with faculty, staff and student research projects.
What are the main shortcomings of the EIR?
Overall the EIR is adequate from the reserve's perspective because there are minimal changes to the borders of the CNR. Changing the borders of the CNR may disrupt current and potential long-range research.
However, personally I feel the EIR did a poor job of assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed LRDP. The biggest shortcoming of the EIR is the repeated use of vague language such as "when feasible." These phrases are ambiguous and give the university a loophole for performing expected mitigations. The feasibility of mitigation measures is a subjective decision that should not be made by the entity proposing development. Unfortunately, mitigations are frequently unsuccessful or not implemented at all. This language just makes it easier for the University to not mitigate its impacts. Along with the "when feasible" phrasing, the EIR does not set reasonable significance thresholds.
A significance threshold is the point after which impacts are considered significant, typically requiring mitigation. Another problem with the EIR is the inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts. This is an extremely important section of any EIR, and the University did not assess cumulative impacts of the proposed development plan.
The impacts to the plant communities are not throughly defined. Currently, the campus has a vegetation management plan (VMP) that is not being implemented. Therefore, I have a hard time believing a new VMP resulting from the LRDP will be implemented. Additionally, there was no assessment of impacts to vegetation in the reserve (e.g. seep zone) that will result from people that will be moving throughout that area. This is a big problem because once there are buildings in the upper campus there will be a great influx of people moving around in that area and creating trails that destroy vegetation. Approximately 48 acres of northern maritime chaparral, a rare plant community, exist on the UCSC campus. The proposed development threatens to remove 11.7 acres of it. It is a fire dependent community, and with an extensive period without fire it becomes dangerously fuel laden.
There were 4 building options identified in the LRDP planning process. Do you think the best one was chosen?
The plan chosen was not the best option. The best option (i.e. least environmental impacts) would have been to maximize infill, and minimize extending utilities and roads into the undeveloped parts of the campus. The plan that was selected will not have the fewest environmental impacts (contrary to EIR findings), and the evaluation of the alternative plans was not sufficient. I'm not anti-growth and I understand the student population will continue to increase. However, I believe the current 2005 LRDP proposes unsustainable growth for this campus. The University did not seriously consider other options, such as moderate growth at the existing campuses and building another campus. There are other communities that would welcome another UC campus and benefit from UC development (e.g. there is not a campus north of Davis). Meanwhile, the City & County of Santa Cruz have threatened UC with lawsuits and withholding infrastructure (e.g. sewer, water) unless UCSC completes all mitigation measures.
Do you have any other points you would like to share?
UC could take better care of their land. This would require designating additional resources to land management. For example, there is currently one quarter-time employee with a minimal operating budget responsible for the stewardship of the 400 acre CNR. UCSC should address existing problems on campus (e.g. erosion, vegetation management, transportation) before proceeding with development. Lastly, I do not believe the University will mitigate all the impacts of the LRDP. Therefore, the impacts outlined in the EIR will not be mitigated to "less than significant" levels. UC should provide a report on the mitigations measures and "less than significant" impacts identified in the 1988 LRDP before certifying this EIR.