Laserfiche WebLink
City of Santa Ana <br />Environmental Checklist <br />• Reduced snow pack and stream flow in the Sierra Nevada mountains, affecting winter recreation <br />and water supplies. <br />• Potential increase in the severity of winter storms, affecting peak stream flows and flooding. <br />• Changes in growing season conditions that could affect California agriculture, causing variations <br />in crop quality and yield. <br />• Changes in distribution of plant and wildlife species due to changes in temperature, competition <br />from colonizing species, changes in hydrologic cycles, changes in sea levels, and other climate - <br />related effects. <br />These changes in California's climate and ecosystems are occurring at a time when California's <br />population is expected to increase from 34 million to 59 million by the year 2040 (CEC 2006). As <br />such, the number of people potentially affected by climate change, as well as the amount of <br />anthropogenic GHG emissions expected under a "business as usual" (BAU) scenario, are expected to <br />increase. Changes similar to those noted above for California would also occur in other parts of the <br />world with regional variations in resources affected and vulnerability to adverse effects. GHG <br />emissions in California are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/ <br />manufacturing, utilities, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors (CEC 2006) as well as <br />natural processes. <br />Regulatory Setting <br />Federal Climate Change Policy <br />Twelve U.S. states and cities (including California), in conjunction with several environmental <br />organizations, sued to force the EPA to regulate GHGs as a pollutant pursuant to the federal CAA <br />(Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [U.S. Supreme Court No. 05 -1120; argued <br />November 29,2006; decided April 2, 2007]). The court ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, <br />that GHGs fit within the CAA's definition of a pollutant, and that the EPA's reasons for not regulating <br />GHGs were insufficiently grounded in the CAA. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, there are no <br />promulgated federal regulations to date limiting GHG emissions. <br />On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse <br />gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: <br />• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected <br />concentrations of the six key well -mixed GHGs —0O2, CHa, N20, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 —in <br />the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. <br />• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of <br />these well -mixed GHGs frorn new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines <br />contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. <br />Although these findings did not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities, <br />this action was a prerequisite to finalizing the U.S. EPA's Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission <br />Standardsfor Light-Duty Vehicles, which was published on September 15, 20093, On May 7, 2010, the <br />final Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy <br />Standards was published in the Federal Register. <br />3 http:// www. epa. gov/ cliniatecliange /endangerment.htnil <br />The Academy Charter High School 12 <br />20 <br />3 43 June <br />Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration IcF June 20]r <br />l J <br />