Phlox gracilis, found on Ft.Ord 2008 by D. Styer
This page last modified February 19, 2009 by webmaster
Both the chapter and state CNPS are becoming increasingly concerned about damage to threatened plants and habitat in the Clear Creek/San Benito Mtn. Natural Area from motorcycles violating rules established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). While the chapter applauds the recent efforts of BLM to fence off sensitive areas for greater control over destructive activities, the BLM has been slow to implement needed protections, monitor violations, and enforce existing rules. The many delays in implementing the new CCMA plan dating from 1995 have resulted in many new illegal trails through sensitive habitat areas. The chapter has asserted that incidents of damage should have triggered closure of impacted areas, but no action was taken other than partial fencing and a limited number of warning signs, which are apparently being ripped down by motorcyclists. As a result, after consultation with the chapter, the state CNPS and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) a lawsuit was filed against BLM in Nov. 2004 to seek compliance with federal laws governing management and conservation of the Federally listed San Benito Evening Primrose. Further, CNPS has written BLM officials formally requesting closure of the CCMA because of excessive violations, as stipulated by its agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The chapter urged BLM to act decisively to close the CCMA so that the lawsuit would not have to be pursued, but the request was denied by BLM Director Mike Pool. The matter was settled when BLM agreed that all open trails would be marked and motorcycles would be limited to those trails, but the lawsuit was kept open pending completion of the promised action by BLM. While BLM has promised to enforce the new ROD and BO, CNPS monitoring shows otherwise. Brian LeNeve has sent several letters of protest to BLM, and CNPS continues to monitor and consider the option of going back to court. The last action became unnecessary when BLM closed the entire Clear Creek area last May 1 because of concern over the impact of asbestos on visitor health, thus ending ALL use, even that which is educational and non-destructive (botany field trips). As Brian pointed out at the time, "the closure has nothing to do with the issues we have fought about for decades--the destruction of sensitive plant habitat by rogue motorcyclists violating BLM rules." the BLM is now in the midst of preparing yet another new Resource Management Plan.
Hundreds of critical comments on BLM's Draft Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the 274,000 acres it manages on the Central Coast and Southern Diablo Range were received before the the Feb. 27, 2006 deadline (this document is separate from the Clear Creek Management Area discussed above). Chapter comments were especially critical of the plans for the 15,000 acres managed by BLM at Fort Ord, which could be opened to motorized use, increased trails for horses and bicycles, target practice, hunting, fishing, commercial plant collection, and in general reduced protection for sensitive habitats. Letters also were critical of additional destructive uses proposed for areas on the far east side of Monterey and San Benito counties, including Joaquin Rocks and the Panoche, Tumey, Ciervo, and Griswold Hills. Those areas, which are home to threatened and endangered plants and habitats as well as animals including the kit fox, were proposed for significant increases in grazing and recreation use with little or no analysis of the impacts. The chapter expected that the trustee agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, CA Dept. of Fish and Game) would not sign off on this document, but instead would require BLM to analyze the impacts and recirculate the document to the public. However BLM has apparently decided instead to opt for a less environmentally destructive alternative.
CNPS remains very concerned about the impacts on the native Monterey Pine Forest of the multiple expansion projects underway and planned by the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP). The City of Monterey approved a project ironically titled "The Forest Pavilion Wing" when it would remove 294 trees from the native forest for the hospital expansion (209 Monterey pines, 67 oaks, and 18 other species). The project calls for 120 new beds (remodeling of existing rooms will result in a net gain of 48 beds) and 63 additional parking spaces. Scenic easements imposed on a previous permit were to be lifted to accommodate this project. At the same time CHOMP is still in the midst of a major expansion approved in 1997, and had earlier received approval for a massive development at Ryan Ranch to house medical offices and all the outpatient facilities that are currently at CHOMP. The plan calls for: 1) Phase One: Shuttle Parking Lot for 75 cars; 2) Phase Two: three 3-story 30,000 sq. ft. buildings, one 2-story 20,000 sq. ft. building, one 2-story 10,000 sq.ft. building, and 371 parking spaces; and 3) Future Phase: five 2-story 20,000 sq. ft building, and 424 parking spaces. Proposed uses are for new administrative offices, patient services, physician offices, and material services. The chapter questioned the propriety of issuing a Negative Declaration instead of requiring an EIR for such a major undertaking, which will have huge impacts on biological resources, water, traffic, etc. There is concern that these various projects do not consider the cumulative impacts caused by the totality of the developments. Beyond all this, CHOMP has 17- and 6-acre parcels adjoining the existing hospital that reportedly are slated to become a cardiac center, a residential village, an assisted living facility, and a skilled nursing facility. All this on the pine-covered ridge forming the scenic backdrop of the Peninsula, which Is becoming increasingly fragmented by development. Its moth-eaten appearance is particularly obvious when approaching from the north on Highway 1.
The chapter submitted comments at various points during the long and frustrating six-year process of revising Monterey County's General Plan. After the Board of Supervisors turned down two compromise plans on 3-2 votes, the chapter joined with more than a dozen civic and environmental groups led by LandWatch, a local group promoting sustainable development, to support the Community General Plan, which became an initiative signed by over 15,000 Monterey voters. When the Supervisors refused to put it on the June 06 ballot, arguing that it had legal flaws, Landwatch sued. Surprisingly, the judge upheld the county action, stating that the measure violated the Voting Rights Act by not providing all the initiative materials in Spanish as well as English. The decision was appealed and overturned. Ultimately four measures, including the county-approved plan and the environmental alternative, were placed on the ballot in the June 07 election. A confusing campaign resulted in defeat of all the proposals, and the Board of Supervisors sent the plans back to the Planning Dept. to work out a compromise. "GPU 5" is close to approval by the Supervisors, having survived a 2-2 vote to weaken it still further. The recent election of the new pro-conservation 4th District supervisor gives hope that the final result will be strengthened rather than weakened. The deadline for comments has been repeatedly postponed and is now set for Jan. 29. The chapter continues to urge that the new General Plan should include the following provisions: 1) strengthen the language protecting sensitive plants and habitats: use the Dept. of Fish & Game Special Plant List (which includes plants listed in CNPS's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California), as required by California Environmental Quality Act, rather than only those that have been State or Federally listed, specifically, the lists of qualifying plants provided with the comments; 2) strengthen policies identifying and eradicating invasive exotic plants; 3) support increased protection of the Monterey pine Including expansion of Jacks Peak County Park; 4) provide maximum opportunity consistent with public health and safety for periodic prescribed burning of maritime chaparral and Monterey pine forest; 5) develop success criteria for restoration resulting from development mitigations to include related components of the community, not just trees; 6) protect agricultural land to minimize conversion of natural habitat to crops, and retain the policy prohibiting such conversion on slopes over 25%.
The Los Padres NF is one of four central and southern California national forests that are in the process of finalizing their new forest plans. The Monterey Bay Chapter of CNPS participated actively in the last update in the mid-80s and has continued to be involved in the current process. Issues include the protection of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and communities from the impacts of grazing (see below), fire management, off-road vehicles, and invasive non-native species; wild river protection; trail maintenance; and the controversial Forest Pass program (The latter program has been cancelled in the Monterey District, but it remains in effect for other districts in the Los Padres.). The Draft Forest Plan and associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement were approved and underwent their first annual monitoring and evaluation in Oct. 06. A report was to be published in late 07 indicating any areas where management policies need to be changed. For further details about this effort, see the US Forest Service webpage http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/lospadres or write to Forest Supervisor, 6755 Hollister Ave., Suite 150, Goleta, CA 93117.
The chapter sent in comments in 2001 on Environmental Assessments for eight proposed grazing leases on USFS land on the Big Sur Coast. The letter supported the FS proposal to cancel the Torre Canyon and Twitchell Leases and raised a number of issues about the six areas proposed for renewal: Gorda, Alder Creek, Buckeye, Salmon Creek, Cozy Cove. and San Carpoforo. The concerns included impacts on water quality, sensitive plants, erosion, and the spread of invasive weeds. When the Record of Decision was finally released in the fall of 2001, only Buckeye was removed from the list; as a result, the Ventana Wilderness Alliance (VWA) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) appealed the decision and they were withdrawn by the USFS. Then the forest prepared new assessments which were released for public comment. Despite critiques from the public, the USFS announced that they would be approved. Again the CBD and VWA appealed, and the projects were dropped, only to be inserted later in the new Forest Plan. Other environmental analyses recently underway include repairing Arroyo Seco-Indians Road, installing a radio repeater on Junipero Serra Peak, Kirk Creek Campground rehabilitation, Big Sur River Comprehensive Management Plan, and the Monterey Defensible Fuel Profile Zones. For further information call theMonterey Ranger District Office in King City, 385-5434.
The chapter commented extensively on the issues that should be considered in the Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) that was prepared by the County in 2005 for the revived September Ranch, a 109-unit housing project on the north side of Carmel Valley between Roach Canyon and Canada de la Segunda. After the Carmel Valley Advisory Committee voted unanimously to deny the project based on strong public criticism of the water, traffic and habitat issues, the project was withdrawn and a new Recirculated DREIR was released in late February of this year, with comments due by Apr. 3. The chapter's comments reemphasize that the previous DREIR underestimated the significance of the Monterey pine and urged that this shortcoming be corrected in the new document. The project would affect the easternmost large forest of Monterey pines adjacent to Jacks Peak Park, a forest that is genetically significant because it is adapted to drier conditions and different soils from the coastal populations. This apparent resistance to drought means that these trees are likely to contain genetic resources that are may be critical in the future to the impacts of climate change, especially to the multi-billion dollar world-wide Monterey pine timber industry concentrated in Mediterranean climates in the southern hemisphere. Roughly half of the September Ranch lots are in the upper half of the steep parcel, occupied primarily by Monterey pine forest. The previous EIR claimed that only 610 or less than 1% of the pines would be removed, and they would be replanted on a 3 for 1 basis. However, by siting estate development throughout the forest (plus roads, utilities, fences, weeds, dogs, horses, etc.), it would be fragmented to the point where it could become much more vulnerable to pitch canker and other diseases, and could lose the capacity to be self-sustaining. The previous documents acknowledge substantial cumulative impacts to the Monterey pine forest, but state that they will be mitigated to less than significant by management practices that will be provided in a Forest Management Plan. Because of the threat from pitch canker and the lack of proven resistance, the proposals do not respond to the actual cumulative impacts on the pine. And this was to be a future document, not analyzed by the county or the public, which is not an acceptable mitigation. Chapter representatives attending two field trips last year were appalled to see that French broom had been allowed to spread up the steep slopes nearly to the boundary with Jacks Peak Park. The importance of preventing the degradation of the park is another strong reason for opposing the design of this project. A lawsuit filed by the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club resulted in in sending the project back to the drawing board in early 08.
The Coastal Commission (CC) held an all-day hearing Mar. 9 in Monterey on Measure A, the developer sponsored initiative which eliminated public input into the proposed zoning changes to facilitate the new development in Del Monte Forest. Previously the county had rushed the plan through the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in the face of serious objections from the CC and before critics had even had a chance to digest the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report. The CC stated that there is a "fundamental disagreement" with the county's interpretation of the policies on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas: the developers want to use the maps from the early 80's, while the CC asserts that the most recent maps and scientific studies should be used. Also, the CC, CNPS, and many others have urged all along that the county should have submitted Measure A to the CC to determine if it is consistent with the Coastal Act before the county took up the complex and controversial project itself. At the Mar. 9 meeting the chapter urged changes to make the plan consistent with the Coastal Act by reducing the impacts of the new 18-hole golf course; the proposed new stables complex in the Huckleberry Hill Natural Area, where two permanent scenic easements must be abandoned to allow it; the driving range, golf academy, parking, and related structures in Area 8C, a highly sensitive habitat area; and several residential subdivisions that will intrude into pristine Monterey pine habitat. After the approvals by the county last year, a number of groups filed appeals to the CC as the first step in an effort to get major changes in the plan to protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). Although Supervisor Potter voted for the project, he did state publicly that when it is considered by the CC, better protections are needed for ESHA, specifically the Monterey pine forest and the rare plants and animals that depend on it. The CC did not make a decision on Mar. 9, but after extensive testimony at the June 07 meeting in Santa Rosa, the CC denied the plan on a 8-4 vote. Meetings between PBC and the CC are reportedly working toward a compromise that would eliminate the controversial golf course and new stables, cut hotel expansion, and expand housing development.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report on this proposed 281-unit housing project at the mouth of Carmel Valley was circulated starting Jan. 15, withs comments due Mar. 7, 2008 The project was originally proposed by the late Nick Lombardo on what is now the Rancho Canada West Golf Course in order to provide low-income and work-force housing along with market-rate units. Strong opposition has been expressed to the location, which is largely in the Carmel River flood plain, and to the impacts on traffic, air quality, water supply, etc. from such a high-density development. CNPS expressed particular concern over the extensive grading that would be required to raise the project above the 100-year flood level and the resulting interference with the natural course of the river and its highly valuable and sensitive riparian community as well as adverse impacts on the Hilton Bialek Natural Habitat Area at Carmel Middle School. Because of these and other concerns, the plan has gone back for extensive revisions. There will be many opportunities for public comments on these issues as the plan goes through the county process. Members are strongly encouraged to participate in this effort to protect the natural values of the Carmel River.
The chapter has been asked to participate in a committee to try to achieve consensus on the proposal for a resort/golf course/housing/commercial development at the southwest corner of the former Fort Ord. Located on the northeast side of the intersection of Gen. Jim Moore Blvd. and South Boundary Road, the project would double the size of the City of Del Rey Oaks according to an article in the Monterey County Herald of Dec. 10, 2006. The original proposal was to bypass the EIR process by using a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a simpler level of environmental review appropriate for small projects; but after adverse publicity, the city decided to require an EIR, which is now underway. The chapter has been involved in this project for several years because of its efforts to protect the rare plant reserve on the site. The developer has proposed to move the reserve to a more convenient location, but one, unfortunately, where the plants do not exist. Other concerns include impacts on water, traffic, air quality, etc. According to articles in the press in late 2008, the financial backers of the project have withdrawn, but the developer reportedly plans to continue with new sponsors if possible.
The largest single project ever proposed for the city of Marina is now working its way through the environmental review process. The mixed-use proposal is located on a 320-acre section of the Armstrong Ranch that adjoins the city and is included in the urban growth boundary approved by Marina voters in 2000. The project has a number of environmentally advanced design features, but it also has severe impacts on sensitive dune habitat. The challenge is to devise mitigations that make up for the habitat lossā for example, over 50 acres of the Federally-listed Monterey Spine-Flower habitat will be converted to urban use, as well as wetlands and other rare habitats. A proposal to mitigate these losses by restoring degraded areas on Regional Park District Lands or city parklands is problematical. A more acceptable proposal would be to set aside comparable acreage within the project area or adjoining it, on land that would otherwise be potentially developable. A suggestion for a 125-150 acre regional park could be a solution that would benefit both the community and the environment. The election of Bruce Delgado as mayor of Marina provides encouragement for a compromise plan.
Former CNPS Botanist Misa Ward sent out an invitation to chapters to utilize a new system for submitting recommendations for changes in the status of plants in the CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. She stated: "To expedite the review and processing of future changes to the Inventory, we are asking requesters to "sponsor" proposed changes by formally requesting them and submitting the needed supporting information in a standard format. This new process is modeled on the one used by the California Lichen Society, and it is more efficient and organized than our old system, because it specifies the type of data we need, consolidates the information for reviewers, and makes it easier to identify data gaps. It also provides more transparency in the review process and makes it easier to give credit to contributors."
Maintained by the CNPS Rare Plant Program as part of the CA Natural Diversity Database (at the Dept. of Fish and Game), the list includes five categories: 1B --rare, threatened, or endangered plants; 2--rare, threatened, or endangered in CA, more common elsewhere; 3 --plants for which we need more information; 4 - plants of limited distribution, a watch list; and 1A - plants not seen for many years and considered extinct. Occasionally one of the latter is refound; an example is a diminutive mustard, Tropidocarpum capparideum, found by botanical consultant Beth Painter at Fort Hunter Liggett in 1997.
A related issue is the short list of 1B plants that appear to qualify for State or Federal listing: Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita (Arctostaphylos cruzensis), one location in Pacific Valley (appears to have been extirpated); Muir's tarplant (Carlquista muirii, formerly Raillardiopsis m.) one location on the Ventana Double Cone; recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), one location near Lonoak Road; and rayless layia (Layia discoidea), several locations on serpentine in San Benito Co. All of them have one or more locations in at least one other county. CNPS is also taking a closer look at San Antonio collinsia (Collinsia antonina) which was a CNPS 1B plant until it was lumped with C. parryi in the Jepson Manual. It was first collected by Clare Hardham south of Jolon. Now that Baldwin and Armbruster have published a paper showing that it is evolutionarily distinct from C. parryi, it should be resurveyed and its status corrected. Finally, further action is needed on the failure of the Army to designate critical habitat for the purple amole (Chlorogalum purpureum) at Fort Hunter Liggett, after a decision requiring designation in a lawsuit brought by State CNPS and the Center for Biological Diversity.
The chapter is continuing to monitor development at Fort Ord. Much effort has been devoted to minimizing the impacts of the expansion of the Del Rey Oaks entrance to Fort Ord off Highway 218 in Del Rey Oaks. An agreement signed with the city requires substantial mitigations in the form of land set aside for protection and specific restoration efforts. However, a 600-unit luxury hotel and golf course proposed for a Del Rey Oaks site east of Gen. Jim Moore Road (formerly North-South Road) raises a number of concerns relating to habitat, as well as water supply and traffic. The project has been quiescent the last couple of years, but an EIR has been in the works for some time (see above). The chapter is concerned that burning has become such a polarizing issue at Fort Ord, because burning has been shown to be more beneficial for sensitive chaparral and coastal scrub communities than the heavy mowing alternative. The chapter would prefer to see the burning continued under carefully prescribed conditions. The Air Pollution Control District prepared an EIR on a Proposed Smoke Management Program indicating that additional rules may be necessary to protect public health and the environment during open burning. The chapter supported the proposal and also supported a plan prepared by the Army to use controlled burns as a crucial step in the removal of unexploded ordnance from impact areas.
Access to rare plant habitat at FHL has been very difficult in the last few years. Chapter members met with officials at FHL to discuss ways to improve access, and was successful in obtaining permission to collect at FHL several years ago for the annual April Wildflower Show. Botanists have been exploring the area for over 100 years, and the Floristic Survey of FHL in the 90s has added significant information on the variety and rarity of the post's flora. The chapter is particularly interested in the serpentine habitats on the rugged west side of the post where military activities generally do not take place. We hope to regain permission to visit these important areas, but under the present closures at Federal installations, the public is only allowed to botanize along the edge of the main roads at FHL. Drivers must have their driver's license, car registration, and proof of insurance in order to enter the post. The chapter was relieved at the announcement that FHL was not chosen to receive one of the new brigades created by the Dept. of Defense. However, expansion on a smaller scale continues to take place, but it is mostly located in the developed cantonment area.
Although the proposed dramatic increase in practice bombing by the Navy in Stony Valley at Fort Hunter Liggett several years ago was cancelled by the Navy Secretary after a massive public outcry, nearby residents have reported a big increase in flyovers and bombing runs anyway. The principal reasons people opposed the expansion were the effect of noise on wildlife and on the values of solitude and serenity in the nearby Ventana and Silver Peak Wilderness Areas, the rural San Antonio Valley, and the Big Sur Coast. There are also concerns about botanical, historical, geological, cultural, and archeological impacts, as well as safety issues. This issue needs to be monitored, as the Navy does have alternate sites that could be used.
The chapter continues to be concerned about the impacts of the massive expansion of vineyards in Monterey Co. Thanks to a lawsuit by CNPS and The Sierra Club, the Supervisors were forced to back off a decision that "vineyards are not crops," and therefore they did not have to obey the rule that prohibits the conversion of uncultivated land on slopes over 25% to crops. Vineyards on slopes over 15% are required to get a permit; however, the county has been very lax about enforcing this regulation, and even When the Planning Department and Planning Commission crack down on violators, as in the Lakeview Vineyard case, the Supervisors let them off the hook. Continued vigilance is needed to assure that vineyards do not destroy critical habitat and create additional erosion problems. The so-called compromise version of the General Plan (GPU5) would allow vineyards on slopes over 25% with a permit. If this change goes through, over 500,000 acres of such slopes on private land would be vulnerable.
Gallo-Olson Ranch Vineyard Expansion: Several years ago at county meetings, the chapter and other speakers raised a number of issues about the proposed doubling of the size of the Gallo vineyard on the historic Olson Ranch on Paraiso Springs Road southwest of Soledad. A 350-acre-foot reservoir to provide summer water for the existing and proposed vineyards along with a bypass ditch required by the Dept. of Fish & Game would destroy 321 mature oaks. Testimony pointed out the important values of retaining oaks, and explained that this and adjoining ranches are in a key wildlife corridor between the Santa Lucias and the Gabilans because the only safe route for wildlife to cross is under the Highway 101 bridge across the Salinas River just south of Soledad. The Gallo representatives did agree to remove vines planted on 12 acres of slopes over 25% and to eliminate 73 acres of vines proposed for slopes over 25% from the Phase 2 vineyard. The county made a few small improvements before approving the project, but efforts to have the remainder of the ranch placed in a conservation easement did not succeed. Because of the county's poor enforcement record, the chapter needs to monitor enforcement at this and similar projects to make sure they are meeting all the conditions of their permits.
The chapter has worked for several decades to protect and restore the riparian habitat of the Carmel River, which was badly damaged by years of drought and overpumping. Under the previous management by the Board of Supervisors and the Public Utilities Commission, Cal-Am was allowed to put in high production wells which lowered the water table and caused the death of vegetation on the banks, leaving them vulnerable to heavy erosion from high flows and run-off. Conservationists supported the formation of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) in 1978 to bring about local control of our water resources, and it has made dramatic progress in restoring the river. Local control has been a mixed bag, as when pro-development majorities on the board supported a large dam on the Carmel River that was twice defeated when put to a vote of the people. More recently, conservationists who opposed the dam but supported a modest desal plant were frustrated by a four-pronged attack by well-financed development interests: 1) a massive initiative campaign against the board that resulted in an vote (advisory only) in November 2002 to abolish the MPWMD (the election showed the corrosive power of money in swaying voters--the proponents spent some $70,000, only revealed after the election, on attack ads compared to $0 by the supporters); 2) a similar campaign in 2003 that succeeded in installing two more pro-development directors on the board; 3) emboldened by these events, bills were introduced and passed the Senate to abolish the MPWMD, but were defeated in the Assembly thanks to the efforts of former Assemblyman John Laird; and 4) A vote on a proposal to fund a study by the MPWMD of the feasibility of acquiring Cal-Am (the private purveyor that was taken over by a German company), which was turned down after another one-sided campaign. It should be clear that protection of our limited water resources will require more assertiveness from concerned citizens. For example, a new watermaster board set up by a judge in deciding a lawsuit over the Seaside aquifer is worrisome because it appears to provide for a pro-development control of that element of our water supply. The recent effort by the state to enforce Order 95-10 limiting Cal-Am's water diversions from the Carmel River points up the serious nature of our water issues.
CNPS is deeply concerned about proposals by the Corps of Engineers to construct flood walls up to 11 feet high (on the Monterey side) on the Pajaro River, plus levees on Salsipuedes and Corralitos creeks on the Santa Cruz side. Environmental groups are urging a multi-objective plan utilizing set-back levees with restored riparian vegetation. Despite a series of meetings to determine what the community wants, there is apparently no consensus yet, and any final plan must still be approved by the Corps of Engineers and a long list of state and federal agencies. There are hopeful signs that the design principles adopted by the working group are intended to limit channelization of the river to urban areas and to encourage setbacks and vegetation restoration in the agricultural areas. North county members are urged to keep informed on this issue and stand up for protecting and restoring riparian vegetation.
For further information on these or other issues, e-mail Conservation Chair Corky Matthews or call 659-2528.