Date: 01-13-08                                                                                              

To: David Okita – General Manager for Solano County Water Agency

From: Roberto Valdez – Stakeholder for the Friends of Lagoon Valley

Subject:  Recommended comments for the Solano County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Working Draft (2.2).

I am a long-time Vacaville resident who is actively involved with the HCP for the past 10 years, attending monthly steering committee meetings and participating in the early regional workshops.

Also, I am a group stakeholder, representing the Friends of Lagoon Valley, a grass-root organization dedicated to protecting Lagoon Valley, since 2002.

In addition, as a bilingual fluent speaker, I recommend that the Executive Summary for the Draft HCP be translated into Spanish language and posted in the SCWA website.

Therefore, in addition to endorsing both the HCP Conservationists and TALC  Swainson’s Hawk group comments, I am submitting my individual comments on behalf of the Friends of Lagoon Valley:

Pages:         Section:                                                Recommended Comments:

1.0 Introduction:

1-3     The HCP needs to clarify the specific roles that both the general public and stakeholders will have in the HCP planning process.  Otherwise, both the general public and stakeholders will be confused about their voluntary responsibilities and expectations as community advisors.

1-4& 1-6:   Both the Steering Committee “Goals and Issues” (1.2.2.1) and “Guiding Principles” (1.3.2) for the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) of Solano County stipulate categorically the importance of preserving, retaining, and establishing both open spaces/ greenbelt buffers between cites, so that the HCP needs to reevaluate the importance of the central location that the Lagoon Valley corridor provides geographically for threatened/endangered species in Solano County (Figure 3-5).

 3.0 Environmental Setting/Biological Resources:

 3-3 to3-4:  The overall description of both the Delta and Suisun marshlands (3.1.2) need to correspond clearly to maps (Figures 3-2 to 3-4).

3-5:   Focusing on the Lagoon Valley detention basin, a hydrological explanation is needed on the significant impacts that both the hillside run-off and lake tend contribute to the watershed division between the Sacramento River/Delta and San Francisco Bay Drainage Province during major floods.

3-9 to 3-10:  A comprehensive discussion on the vernal pools in the Valley Floor Grasslands (3.3.2) is needed for the crustacean species, including Lagoon Valley .  The present HCP tends to neglect the vernal pools in Lower Lagoon Valley corridor.

Also, I would like to suggest that a transparent overlay be use to distinguish the historic vernal pools from the current ones in Solano County in the comparative map (Figure 3-6), so that a better illustration can be used to show their seasonal fluctuations over time.  In any case, the complex ecosystem of vernal pools are still being deciphered  by environmental experts.

3-19:  Anticipating future concerns, an additional list/table is needed for the 21 regional species which were originally dropped from the initial list of 92 covered species (3.4); they can probably be re-inserted in Appendix B.

4.0 Conservation Analysis:  

4-7 Corridors (4.3.2):  The HCP needs to prioritize the 7 major corridors (4.3.1.1) which offer a safe passage for migratory threatened/endangered species throughout Solano County.  Nevertheless, the SCWA map (Figure 4-3) only identifies numerically the key corridors, but it does not explain  their ecological relationships/connectivity that the HCP purports to target in its conservation efforts with regards to natural barriers such as the Vaca mountains. 

Also, the HCP tends to underestimate the environmental impacts that both Highways I-505 and I-80 will have on species’ migration in the North Vacaville (No.1) and Southern Vacaville-Fairfield Green Belt corridors (No. 2) corridors respectively.  Anticipating future problems, it needs to consider methods which can be constructed efficiently to mitigate these man-made barriers, including Highway I-12.

4-9  Valley Floor Grassland and Vernal Pool Ecosystems:  By its own admission, the HCP identifies the lack of “biodiversity data” on the Vacaville Vernal Pool High Value Conservation Area in possible hot spots within the Lagoon Valley corridor such as the vernal pools around Lagoon Valley Lake (Figure 4-4). However, the HCP needs to reassess the elusive presence of these vernal pools and their crustacean species before they are designated as part of urban pre-approved development and agricultural areas.

Extensive field surveys with modern aerial photography will be needed to verify the actual presence of these elusive species and their habitats in Lower Lagoon Valley.

4-22 to 4-30 California Red-Legged Frog (4.3.4):  Based on the WRA Peer Review( 2007) on LSA’s Biological Assessment Surveys (2005-2006) on the absence of CRLFs within the Lower Lagoon Valley corridor, the HCP needs to verify the potential co-existence of these species with CTSs in their present habitats.  Please refer to pages 17-18 in attached WRA peer review (2007).

4-33 to 4-40 Riparian, Stream, and Fresh Water Marsh Natural Communities (4.3.6):  Based on the WRA Peer Review (2007) on LSA’s Delineation of waters of the United States (2003) in the Lower Lagoon Valley corridor, the HCP needs to investigate the biological misclassification on the hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology terrain areas which are need for survival species in their wetland habitats.  Please refer to pages 2-9 in the attached WRA peer review(2007).

4-58 to 4-60 Contra Costa Goldfields (4.5.2.2):  Based on WRA Peer Review(2007) on LSA’s Special Status Plants surveys the Lower Lagoon Valley corridor, the HCP needs to reexamine botanically the cluster peak blooming period during April which LSA surveys missed seasonally from 2005 to 2006.  Please refer to pages 21-22 in the attached WRA Peer Review(2007).

5.0 Conservation Strategy:  

5-14 to 5-33 Valley Floor Grassland and Vernal Pool (5.2.2):  Based on WRA Peer Review(2007) on LSA’s Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (2006) in the Lower Lagoon Valley corridor, the HCP needs to preserve the existing vernal pools and tule/marshlands which provide vital watershed habitats for covered/associated native species along the valley landscape and         hillside uplands.

Also the HCP needs to monitor regularly the hillside erosion which both cattle-grazing and human encroachment are having on wet/grassland drainages.  Please refer to pages 11-12 of the attached WRA peer review re: mitigation impacts.  In addition, compared to other regional HCPs, the present HCP needs to aim for a higher-than-average mitigation ratios for its covered species and targeted goals as outlined in the Attachment B Chart(2007) of the Executive Summary.

5-34 to 5-38 California red Legged Frog (5.2.4):  The present HCP needs relatively to adopt a higher-than-average mitigation    ratio for this elusive endangered/threatened specie rather than assume its eradication in Lower Lagoon Valley corridor.

5-44 to 5-70  Riparian, Stream and Freshwater Marsh (5.2.6):  The effective results of the USF&W Recovery Plan will remain in doubt unless the HCP adopts appropriate conservation criteria to preserve the CRLFs in the Lower Lagoon Valley corridor.  Please refer to pages 4-70 to 4-71 of the HCP working draft 2.2.

6.0 Adaptive Management And Monitoring:

6-19 to 6-24  Valley Floor Grassland and Vernal Pool Natural Community (6.4.2):  Based on the WRA peer review (2007) of the LSA’s Delineation of  Waters of the United States in the Lower Lagoon Valley Residential/Commercial Project Site(2003), the HCP needs to monitor, at least every 2-3 years during its initial 10-year study, the survival trends of the CTSs, CCGFs, VELBs, vernal pool crustaceans, and special status plant species in the tule/marshland channels and hillside drainages within the corridor.  Please refer to pages 10-11 in the attached WRA peer review(2007). 

6-34 to 6-41  California Red-Legged Frog (6.4.4):  Based on the WRA peer review(2007) of both of  LSA’s CTS and CRLF      Site Assessments (2006) in the Lower Lagoon Valley corridor, the HCP need to apply appropriate measures to correct LSA’s incomplete surveys, incorrect protocol, and minimal mitigation ratios which tend to contribute to the consistent denial of the co-existence of the elusive CRLFs with CTSs in Lagoon Valley.  Please refer to pages 18-19 of the attached WRA peer review.

6-48 to 6-55  Riparian, Steam and Freshwater Marsh Natural Communities (6.4.6):  The HCP needs to monitor regularly the impact of local cattle-grazing and non-native/invasive plants as well as fish in order to avert scientific scrutiny from the general public.   Also, the HCP need not wait for flood control detention basin measures to maintain waterway hydrology and riparian habitat quality in Lower Lagoon Valley  before it implements the  adaptive management and monitoring recommendations from the scientific panel.

7.0 Impact Assessment:

7-2 to 7-3   Valley Floor grassland and Vernal Pool Natural Community re: Zone 1-  Urban Growth Effects (7.2.1):  Based on the WRA peer review(2007) on LSA’s Mitigation and Monitoring Plan(2006) in the Lower Lagoon Valley corridor, the HCP needs to   reevaluate whether the wetlands are progressing toward a healthy ecosystem  for the covered species in the Lagoon Valley corridor.   Please refer to pages 12-13 of the attached WRA peer review(2007).

7-46 to 7-47   Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (7.2.6.32):  Based on the WRA peer review on LSA’s Biological Assessment(2006) in Lower Lagoon Valley corridor, the HCP needs to identify the exact locations of the VPFS habitats within the Lagoon Valley floor and uplands to ease the environmental impact of the proposed development and agribusiness activities.  Please refer to pages 13-17 of the WRA peer review (2007).

7-49 to 7-50    Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (7.2.6.34):  Same concerns as the VPFSs, but the HCP needs also to explain the co-existing relationship that both the VPTSs and VPFSs share in both the natural /artificial habitats in the Lagoon Valley corridor.  Please refer to pages 13-17 of the WRA peer review (2007).

7-51 to 7-53  California Tiger Salamander (7.2.6.36):  Based on the WRA peer review of LSA’s CTS Site Assessment(2006), the HCP needs to confirm that the CTS is definitely occupying both the breeding ponds(10) along the hillside uplands and the vernal pools around the lake in the Lower Lagoon corridor.

Furthermore, the CTS ponds, as well as species migration between the ponds, are threatened by lack of adequate artificial barriers such as fences from proposed development.  Please refer to page 20 of the WRA peer review (2007).

7-55 to 7-59  California Red-Legged Frog (7.3):  Based on the WRA peer review(2007) of LSA’s CRLF Site Assessment  (2006),  the same conditions natural/artificial concerns apply to the CRLFs habitat as CTSs in Lower Lagoon Valley corridor.  Please refer to pages 19-20 of the WRA peer review (2007).

7-61 to 7-62  Riparian, Stream and Freshwater Marsh Natural Community  and Freshwater Marsh Natural Community and Associated Species re: Zone 1 (7.5.1), Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (7.5.6.1), and Western Pond Turtle (7.5.6.5):  Based on the WRA peer review(2007) of LSA’s Biological Assessment (2006) in Lower Lagoon Valley, the HCP needs also to anticipate the long terms impacts that both agribusiness and development will have inevitably on the species habitats for the CRLFs, VELBs, and western pond turtles in the Lagoon Valley corridor.   Please refer to pages 13-17 of the WRA peer review (2007).

***8.0 Alternatives:

8-1 to 8-26   Although Alternative 4: Increased Conservation Alternative offers greater conservation benefits for the California Red-Legged Frogs (CLRFs), the Swainson’s Hawks, Burrowing Owls, the Vernal Pools, and Valley Floor Grassland, I am willing to compromise by supporting the trade-off benefits that the present HCP  offers for both threatened/endangered species and their habitats versus the streamlining of the governmental permits for development projects in Solano County.

At same time I am not convince that necessary funding sources such as governmental grants can not be obtained from the regulatory agencies to off-set the overall costs of Alternative 4.

In addition, the present HCP is not complete in its infrastructure unless it reconsiders the conservation components for the threatened/endangered species and their habitats existing in Lagoon Valley .  Of course, the HCP would benefit greatly, if both the City of Vacaville and Solano County would adopt it, but their lack of applicant participation should not preclude its full implementation. 

In short, the present HCP (this already has taken 7-10 years to prepare) offers a win-win situation for all, providing water access from Lake Berryessa in accordance with federal guidelines.

9.0 Plan Implementation:

The HCP still needs to reach-out to both the business and farming sectors to achieve stronger community partnerships.

Also, SCWA, the lead agency, needs to distribute both the final version of the HCP document to the local libraries in Solano County, if it intends to reach a wide audience from the general public.

10.0 Definition:  

10-1 to 10-17  The following terms need to be added with their technical meanings such as:

a.)   Lagoon Valley

b.)   Wetlands

c.)   Marshlands.

d.)   Habitats

e.)   Species of Concern.

f.)    Stakeholders.

g.)   Crustaceans.

h.)   Plant Clusters.

i.)    Hot Spots

j.)    Invasive/Non-Native Species.

k.)   Grasslands

l.)    Tules

In addition to the Tables of Contents, a supplementary index, as a separate section,  needs be attached at the end of the entire HCP document to provide quick access to relevant information.  If professional advice is needed to accomplish this information tool, I am able to provide technical assistance as a librarian.

11.0 Literature Cited And Preparation Staff:

11-1 to 11-22 The time lags for most of the retrospective references sources, except one or two, are out-dated, especially with regards to recent field studies such as Peer Review:  (http://www.lagoonvalleypark.com/LSA_PeerReview_PN200300760.pd) which was conducted by Wetland Research Assessment in 2007 for the Friends of Lagoon Valley re: Lower Lagoon Valley Development Project(PN200300760).

Also, please include the following recent reports which LSA Associates conducted in the Lagoon Valley corridor during the past few years:

LSA. 2003. Delineation of Waters of the United States on the Lagoon Valley Residential/Commercial Project Site, Solano County , California . October 7.

LSA 2006. Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, Vacaville , California . June 7.

LSA 2006. Biological Assessment, Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, Vacaville , California . June 7.

LSA 2006. California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment, Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, Vacaville , California . June 7.

LSA 2006. California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment, Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, Vacaville , California . June 7.

LSA. 2006. Special Status Plants, Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, Vacaville , California . June 7.

Overall Recommendations: