Habitat Management Plan: city coordinator says 96% of target acreage conserved but 30% of preserves lack management

At the June 4 Environmental Sustainability Commission meeting, Roseanne Humphrey, the city’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) coordinator, delivered an overview of the HMP’s design, regulatory role and current status. Humphrey said the HMP is a citywide implementation plan created under the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program framework to conserve habitat for 31 sensitive species while allowing planned development.

Humphrey explained the preserve system is organized into existing hard line preserves, proposed hard line preserves and standards areas. ‘‘The purpose of establishing the preserve system is to provide habitat for 31 sensitive species,’’ she said. The HMP requires conservation easements and developer‑funded, permanently funded land managers (via non‑wasting endowments) for new preserves; older preserves adopted when the HMP was first established often lack those funding or management arrangements.

Humphrey reported that to date the city has conserved roughly 96% of the HMP’s target acreage and estimates another 243 acres will be added as proposed hard lines are conserved. The preserve system comprises about 150 individual preserves managed by many different owners: the city controls about 11% of the system, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife about 24%, land management entities about 17%, and private landowners about 41% (roughly 130 private owners).

That ownership mix constrains maintenance and enforcement. Humphrey said about 30% of preserves remain unmanaged because older preserves did not come with funded land managers, and that legal and administrative requirements – including rights‑of‑entry and approvals – complicate volunteer or ad hoc maintenance on private preserves. She said the city regularly coordinates with five main land‑manager entities and that each preserve has or will have a preserve management plan that is approved by resource agencies.

Public commenters praised the plan and urged commissioners to keep standards areas high on the priority list. Lance Schulte, a former city planner, told commissioners the HMP simplifies the regulatory process compared with earlier case‑by‑case negotiations and stressed the distinction between federally protected habitat (HMP) and unconstrained open space that the growth management program addresses. ‘‘The management, habitat plan is really, made that a simpler process and a better process because it’s coordinated,’’ he said.

Diane Nygaard (Preserve Calavera) lauded Carlsbad for being the only North County city with an adopted HMP and a full‑time manager and urged commissioners to work through the staff‑provided work plan and background presentations so they are prepared to make recommendations within a year.

Commissioners asked whether the city could compel management for unmanaged preserves; Humphrey said the HMP was not written to transfer responsibility for older preserves to the city and that requiring management for those parcels would be expensive and legally complicated. She noted where new development occurs the HMP requires conservation easements and funded management for the new preserves.

No formal action was taken. Commissioners requested follow‑up information on priority ‘‘hot spot’’ locations, options for volunteer or enhancement projects given right‑of‑entry constraints, and suggested staff continue coordination with land managers and explore ways to present preserve status and funding needs to the council for future budget consideration.