Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-20; FOX MILLER PROPERTY; Tentative Map (CT) (13)DocuSign Envelope 10: 5FB5F999-BFOA-4337-82E1-3220EC89986C Wednesday, April 27, 2016 Mr. Mike Grim City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Ms. Karen A. Goebel Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 Ms. Gail Sevrens COVEYCOMfvlERCIAL Real Estate Services Environmental Program Manager California Department of Fish and Wildlife South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 ~'~1m1SJ ~~l~n ~ \!/' l.9J . , v ! Re: Mitigation and Management Requirements at the Fox-Miller Preserve, City of Carlsbad, California ("Site") Dear Mr. Grim, Ms. Goebel, and Ms. Sevrens: On behalf of the Salk Owners Association ("POA"), we are following up with you in response to recent communications we have received. Specifically, we were sent or provided copies of letters (i) dated August 6, 2015, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("Department") (collectively, the "Agencies"), and (ii) dated October 13, 2015 from the City of Carlsbad ("City") to H.G. Fenton Property Company. Following receipt of the letters, we authorized HELIX to meet with the City and various representatives of the Agencies at the Site on November 19, 2015, and have now received a copy of the minutes of that meeting (dated March 7, 2016) and a March 21, 2016 response to those minutes via email from Ms. Lauren Kershek on behalf of the Service. These above-referenced communications grew out of the POA's previously documented objections to the 5% non-native grass criterion described in the Habitat Restoration and Mitigation Plan1 (HRMP) as being unreasonable and unnecessary given the restoration success at the Site.2 In reviewing Mr. Fisch beck's minutes of the November 19, 2015 site meeting, we were initially heartened by the 1 RECON. 2008. Final Habitat Restoration and Mitigation Plan for Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Valley Needlegrass, with Thread-leaved Brodiaea, and Southern Willow Scrub Wetland for the Fox Property Carlsbad, California. May 6. 2 Letter from Covey Commercial (erroneously attributed to H.G. Fenton in August 6'h Agencies Letter) dated August 27, 2014. P 760.931.1134 1 F 760.931.7634 5800 Armada Drive, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.coveycomrnercial.corn DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FB5F999-BFOA-4337-82E1-3220EC89986C description of the frank and conciliatory dialogue that occurred; specifically that the attendees acknowledged that the 5% non-native cover threshold was too aggressive in concept, and that the Site and the brodiaea population are currently in a stable condition. However, after receipt of Ms. Kershek's March 21sr email, we are again discouraged that, after repeated requests and in light of the acknowledged stable condition of the Site, no documentation or actual evidence has been provided for the Agencies' insistence on further mitigation activities to reduce ·the non-native grasses. The POA is now being told it must now pursue yet another plan of restoring the Site in small blocks, over a long period oftime, in order to "develop a plant palette that will not harm TLB and will thrive at this unique site"--essentially to perform an experiment with no limits on our obligations to fund these activities and no real definition of success3. It is acknowledged by all, however, that this "new approach" would be challenging and would require significant mitigation efforts and expenditures well into the future. With the lack of details, including certainty of outcome and certainty of Agency acceptance, there is no way for the POA to be assured that this latest hypothetical scenario, which would obviously be expensive and time consuming to pursue4, would even aid in protecting the brodiaea or result in final sign off by the Agencies. The POA and the original project proponent have expended time and money well beyond the 5-year time frame and funding calcul.ations contemplated in the original HRMP in order to comply with a 5% success criterion that was practicably unattainable under the HRMP's implementation requirements. The brodiaea population at the Site is acknowledged to be stable. We have never been given any scientific evidence that further efforts are necessary to protect the brodiaea. Finally, the POA is (and, since May of 2012, has been) monitoring and maintaining the Site consistent with the long-term Management Plan5. The project proponent and now the Association have acted in a good faith, conscientious and reasonable manner. We expect the same in return. Thus, we continue to strongly recommend moving forward with Agencies' sign"off of the Mitigation Plan and continued long-term maintenance by the PO A. On Monday, April 18, Justin Fisch beck was contacted by Ms. Jessie Vinje of The Conservation Biology Institute asking that we grant permission for her to enter onto the Site to conduct a SDMMP Management Strategic Plan rare plant and habitat assessment ("Study"). In the Monitoring Protocol documentation, she provided with her request, the objective of the Study is stated to be "to survey existing occurrences for 26 species [including thread-leaved brodiaea] and to document their status and assess threats in order to develop specific management recommendations." If the Agencies and the City wish us to cooperate with this Study, we request a meeting with both the Study proponents and the team that met at the Site on November 19th, so that we may better evaluate our participation and understand how this Study relates to our ongoing dispute. 3The experimental nature of his new "plan" (included in Ms. Kershek's email) is highlighted by Mr. McDonald's statement that "On the long-term it does not appear that invasive grasses always cause the extirpation of native geophytes in Southern California. That being said it does appear that non-native grasses do suppress populations of geophytes in Southern California." 4 In response to our request for a general estimate of cost, Mr. Fisch beck estimated that the new approach being put forth would cost at least an-additional $50;000per year in additionto our-existing long-term maintenance costs. 5 RECON. 2005. Final Long-term Management Plan for Fox-Miller Property Open Space Carlsbad, California. November 23. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FB5F999-BFOA-4337-82E 1-3220EC89986C In addition, the POA is willing at any point to send representatives to meet and work together with the Agencies and the City to determine if there is the possibility of reaching a workable solution. However, to be workable from our perspective, any proposed solution must not impose an unfair level of additional burdens on the POA and its members and it must have scientific foundation; it is unfair to continue to refuse sign off on the 5 year initial plan and instead require us to carry out experiments at this Site. We hope that would be the City and the Agencies' idea of a workable solution as well, given the history of this situation and the efforts expended to date. We have asked Justin Fisch beck to follow up with all of you as to the Study and generally to assess whether a meeting between decision makers might be productive. If so, he will coordinate and schedule. Thank you for your efforts to communicate and conciliate on this subject. We are hopeful that a practical but effective solution can be reached. 837 /FFBBBUFD4/ B ... Jon Dodge, H.G. Fenton Company Board Officer for the Salk Owner's Association Krista M. Vega, Covey Commercial Managing Agent for the Salk Owner's Association 3 Page 1 of 2 Memorandum HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 JustinF@helixepi.com 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com March 7, 2016 Date: To: Van Lynch Cc: Mike Grim (Carlsbad), Lauren Kershek (USFWS), Christine Beck (CDFW), Martha Guy (H.G. Fenton), Krista Vega (Salk POA) From: Justin Fischbeck and Shelby Howard Subject: Salk Property: 11/19/15 site meeting notes HELIX Proj. No.: FWP-15 Message: Below are meeting notes from the site walk conducted on 11/19/15. Attendees: Lauren Kershek; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Christine Beck; California Department of Fish and Wildlife Mike Grim; City of Carlsbad Chris McDonald; UC Cooperative Extension - San Bernardino County Shelby Howard; HELIX Environmental Justin Fischbeck; HELIX Environmental This memo hopes to summarize the general discussion between the above parties on 11/19/15 at the Salk project. This meeting was the most recent in a series, to discuss the current status of the project, progress toward meeting success criteria, and ultimate project sign-off from the City. Unique to this meeting was the opportunity to solicit input from Chris McDonald, who attended at the request of the Resource Agencies. Mike Grim began the meeting with a summary of the activities to-date and issues at hand, including a summary of the success criteria. The focus of the discussion by the City and Resource Agency representatives related to cover of non-native grasses and the specific 5% non-native cover threshold. The general tone of the discussion relating to the 5% success criterion indicated that the 5% requirement may be too aggressive but that the current level of cover was also not ideal. However, no specific acceptable range was recommended nor was a rationale for how to determine an acceptable range discussed. The last correspondence from the Resource Agencies was dated August 6, 2015, and was sent via the City of Carlsbad to HELIX. While that letter was not specifically referenced, the approach recommended in the letter was discussed. The letter recommended that a series of steps be taken by the Property Owners Association to further decrease non-native grass cover. Page 2 of 2 Memorandum (cont.) HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com Generally, these steps included removal of accumulated duff and control of non-native grasses through focused application of grass-specific herbicide, followed by control of emergent broadleaf species. The letter indicated that control of non-native species would provide an opportunity for the site to be re-colonized with native forb and grass species. When these steps were outlined for Chris McDonald in the field, he had a somewhat different view on the efficacy of the outlined steps. It was suggested that the steps outlined in the letter were not actually what may be best for the site and that removal of the non-native grass material may create an unstable situation. Introduction of native grasses and forbs, as suggested in prior meetings and in the August 2015 letter, however, would not likely be robust enough to stabilize the site. Introduction of native shrubs was also considered and rejected, given the density and distribution of brodiaea. There was, however, a general consensus that the site is in a stable setting due to the prevalence of non-native grasses. HELIX asked about the specific threat that non-native grass species present to brodiaea. No one present was aware of scientific articles specific to this topic, however Chris and the Resource Agencies indicated that their concern related the potential correlation of non-native grass cover to depressed flowering rates due to competition for sunlight and water. Through vetting of a series of hypothetical scenarios, it was suggested that if additional activities were to be undertaken, they might include more localized non-native grass control followed by ongoing weed control. As discussed, these activities could be focused within those areas of the site occupied by dense pockets of brodiaea, to maximize benefits to the resource. Grass specific herbicide would be applied in these areas to kill the emerging grasses. The resulting thatch would then be removed and then years of maintenance would be required to continue re- treating non-native grasses and controlling the broadleaf. Once the non-native material was reduced, native grasses could be installed through seed or planting. It was generally acknowledged that controlling non-native grasses in this manner would be challenging and would require focused attention well into the future. There was also an interest in the brodiaea translocation area following from statements in the August 2015 letter regarding reporting on individual brodiaea counts. This area was observed in the field and a question was raised and discussed as to whether a quantified count of the impacted brodiaea was actually made by the previous consultant. It was suggested that the approach accepted at the time of the project approvals was to determine the size of the patches of brodiaea within the project footprint, to translocate all such patches, and then to extrapolate to the number of individuals moved based on the original size determination. The meeting ended at this point with HELIX being asked to circulate minutes.