Flightline Progress Blog

Dear Richard and Ryan,

I have finally caught up with ALL the emails in my inbox this week.

I am glad to see that you are making the connections with the key people and agencies.

I have forwarded your request to the SDMBA board of directors, to have your letter to Maryanne Vancio and Liz Ketabian come from the organization. I think it would be beneficial to use the credibility and reputation of SDMBA when sending formal requests like this. I expect to hear some feedback soon. I have also put in a request to the SDMBA Board to devote some time to the Flightline issue at our next trail advocacy meeting, scheduled Dec. 19^th, 7pm at the Trek Store, Kearny Mesa. I have tried to keep the board members up to date, so maybe we can clarify what the official role of SDMBA will be in this Flightline situation.

Referring to the last letter from Markus, it does not sound reasonable to me that the public should have to fund a biological impact analysis. Since local trail users have used the area for decades, there is not a change in usage that would require an impact assessment. That would apply to only the newest trails. So approval could be granted for recreational access to the area without mentioning the newest trails. Once access is granted, the trail users would only have to deal with Markus about what trails and where.

I have thoroughly read The Conservation Easement. It states on page 7, section 14, that the easement may be amended by mutual written agreement (between the County and City of Carlsbad) with prior written approval of the CDFG and USFWS. The CDFG and USFWS have jurisdiction over the conservation, preservation, enhancement and management of the area because of the Endangered Species Act and the presence of critical habitat. There must be an existing biological impact analysis that was done to create the conservation easement. USFWS issued a “Biological Opinion” on the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan and should be on file at the City of Carlsbad. The corresponding Log Number and File Number can be found on page 2 of the Conservation Easement.

It doesn’t seem like the USFWS would make specific claims to exclude recreational activities such as pedestrian and bicycle access, but that needs to be investigated. We need to know why those activities should be expressly prohibited if they do not represent a change in historical useage for the area.

It is obvious that the management plan for this area was not properly vetted to the community, and that is the fault of the City and County at the time Carlsbad Oaks North was under planning.

I will get back to you about the letter as soon as I get some feedback from the SDMBA Board.

Sincerely,

Minette

Letter from Liz Ketabian, City of Carlsbad Park Planner;

I’m writing in regard to your inquiry and would agree that trails in this area would be of benefit to the City.  As mentioned to you on the phone a few days ago, Markus Spiegelberg of CNLM, Mike Grim, Planning  Dept., myself and the County folks are going to meet to begin an  informational fact finding/discussion on how to address the requests to  look at trail connections in this area.  ( Albiet sooner than anticipated in the Citywide Trails 5 Year Plan)  Conceptual alignments are indicated in the Open Space Conservation Resource Management Plan (1992) available at the Planning Department. (Trail Links 25 and 26) should you wish to find further information on the trail planning in this area of Carlsbad.

Since future meetings will include discussions with the county on the process required for trail development on their property, I cannot fully answer your question nor outline the necessary steps one would have to take in order to have trails on the county parcel and in the Open Space Easement for the Carlsbad Oaks North Plan.  Once we all have the opportunity to come together on December 11th and further information is provided I may be better able to answer any questions you may have. Based upon my previous experience with planning trails here in Carlsbad, this will not be a short process and we would like to make sure all the stakeholders and information is taken into consideration to benefit all trail users and the needs of the mandate of the HMP.

Thanks for your patience.

Liz Ketabian
Park Planner
City of Carlsbad, Recreation
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad,  CA  92008

Today I met a reporter and camera crew from CNN (Time Warner Cable, North County) at the parking lot in Carlsdad where the “old” skyline trail entrace was. We had an interview in front of the fence that was errected to keep out trespassers.

My main point was that we are a group of tax paying citizens that are working with the “system” to re-open these great trails to the families, hikers and mountain bikers of Carlsbad. We are cooperating with CNLM as we know that we need to do this the right way and set an example and help create an action blue print for other riders throughout the country to legalize trail riding in their neighborhoods and county owned lands.
The reporter had made attempts to contact the CNLM but as of the time of the interview today, has not had a response from them yet.

The piece is set to air on CNN on Wednesday or Thursday night. They are going to try to get me a digital copy so I can post it on the website, but no promises. As soon as they contact me letting me know when it will be aired, I will update the FlightLine Progress blog.

Don’t Forget, if you haven’t signed the petition to allow access to these great trails, please sign up over here!

Related Subject:

Public Access to County Land

Today I am meeting CNN to do an interview on the FlightLine trails being closed down. It is set to last about an hour, I’ll let everyone know when they can watch it or where they can go to watch it online.

I got this email to rideflightline email inbox. Like I said over here, I am going to POST EVERTHING…even if it isn’t the opinion of RideFlightLine.com. It’s the right thing to do to keep you all informed.

Please post this anonymously:

The Center for Natural Lands Management is a private company with the designation of Non profit (Don’t let the word non profit fool you. These guys get paid plenty to manage our public lands). This company makes money off developers. Every time a developer has to mitigate (the in vogue word for “pay to screw up nature”) they find a company like CNLM to manage the left over land they had to give up for a development project. The more land that gets developed, the more money the guys at CNLM make. These guys are not government officials. They work for a private company with a vested interest in more development. They have zero authority over us. DO NOT TRUST THEM! To act like they are saving nature is a joke. CNLM’s main function is to aid the development industry to look good as they pave over every possible square inch of our back country. CNLM is not a conservationist or environmentalist group. The best strategy to save 10% of the original Flightline is to get CNLM off our public lands! That is probably quicker than the 2 year process of dealing with the government agencies to get this designated as some kind of miniature mountain bike park. CNLM is more of a policing agency than a real conservationist group. They like to fence off our public lands to keep us out. If mountain bikers use the land they are managing it makes them look bad because they are unable to say they are preserving land in its natural state. Believe me, they will not help us in our cause. Marcus and the CNLM are not our allies. DO NOT TRUST THEM!

So, here is the dilemma folks. I have been getting emails from a bunch of different people. Some of them are getting angry because I say things on this site, which is by a mountain biker for other mountain bikers here in Carlsbad, that may tick off CNLM or the county. Then I get others emailing me venting their opinions and aggravation over the situation.

So there I was sitting there, trying to figure out what this site is all about. And it hit me, I put this together to keep everyone involved and informed. Not the “informed” CNLM or the county wants to hear but the “informed” that was a catalyst that got this whole movement going and will keep then energy level high.

This site is designed to keep all the loose ends together, some of the posts and comments that you will see from now on may not be how the masses feel, maybe they will be just how one or two people  feel, but they’re going up. Within the posts, there WILL be some, probably the majority, of the posts that will convey exactly what the masses think.

I am going to start publishing everything I get from you guys…it’s the only way to REALY keep you informed and hyped up to save these trails.

The Union Tribune did a write up on the FlightLIne situation this past saturday. If you would like to read the entire article you can do so over here. If you are looking for the hightlights…I’ll break it down for you.

CARLSBAD – A group of mountain-bike riders who used a clandestine web of trails for two decades is trying to save them, even as the paths are being fenced off and bulldozed away.

Called Flightline, for their proximity to McClellan-Palomar Airport, the trails had been fashioned over time by riders who built bridges and other features on brush-covered hills that, to them, were of questionable ownership.

When this article hit the presses, RideFlightLine.com has gathered over 1,300 signatures.

Spiegelberg said 100 acres east of the Carlsbad Safety Center near the city’s skate park is controlled by an agreement, called a conservation easement, that bars biking, horseback riding and motorcycling.

That’s why the fence went up.

Spiegelberg said he found some interesting features when he walked through the property recently before taking it over.

“One (trail) was pretty intense. It had bridges and switchbacks and lots of cleared vegetation,” he said, all potential violations of state or federal law.

“I posted it and said you’re on the land illegally, stop, and I got 5,000 e-mails.”

“The uniqueness of this is it’s in the middle of where we all live,” Rest, a Carlsbad resident, said. “There aren’t many places in the county where you can pay $600,000 for your starter home and learn you can’t ride in your backyard.”

Flightline users.

I am meeting with the County on the 11th at the site to discuss the next steps in terms of public use/trails/mountain bikes on the County property which we manage that contains the Flightline mtn bike track.

I have already spoken with them, and they have given me a summary of what they think is going to be needed.  Things may change after our meeting, but unlikely.

So here is a summary.

1.  If mountain bikers want the right to bike on the County property, they will have to form a group and work with the County to delineate a trail system.  Your group will need to meet with the County to determine exactly what steps to take.  In other words, this is going to be a formal process.

2.  Since this is change to the planned use of the area, you will have to do a biological impact analysis to conform with federal, state and local laws.  It is likely that there will be “mitigation” for impacts related to building trails, etc, and the impact analysis will need outline the mitigation measures.  I know several companies that can help you out with this kind of analysis.

3.  The trail plan will go out to the public for public review, and then to the County Supervisors for approval/denial.  This may take up to 2 years, so be patient, but it is the way things work and in the end, if you get permission to ride, it will ensure that all the bases are covered.  This is what all members of the public have to do when they ask for use rights and several groups, like horse back riders, have done it successfully.

In the meantime, our organization has to work within the guidelines of the Conservation Easement and enforce the no biking rules.

You will have to contract with a firm to do your impact analysis, proposal etc, as our organization does not have the funds to do this kind of work for you. But, I can provide some information which will save you time and money.

In the next month, I’d like to do the following.  We will map all existing “trails” using GPS.  I would like to meet with some of you, to look over these maps and discuss your interests in terms of future alignments.  Most of the Flightline trail will or will be blitzed by the development and so we need to discuss connectivity issues.  I know that the UC reserve to the north is posted No Trespassing, and the other areas to the north are ag land.  The development will cut all access to the east (I think).  So my guess is that you’ll end up with a loop trail, but I don’t know until we map it.

So I’ll report back after the 11th, and then go from there.  Let me know when you want to meet.

I am in agreement that local trail users need to be educated in the fields of conservation, ecology, and environmental politics. But it is such a shame that developers can pay big bucks to bulldoze a place with such natural beauty and environmental value, leaving a sliver of it to be “protected”. Meanwhile, the people who have enjoyed this area for decades are made to look like criminals because they want to continue to enjoy it?!

It is my understanding that many of the trails that exist in the Flightline area, were there long before the designation of “nature preserve” was granted. This area has a long history of hands-off management by the property owners. This probably does not apply to the Skyline trail or Safety Center trail, (northern trail and southeastern trail respectively) but it does apply to many of the other trails in the area.

I have studied wildlife conservation and ecosystem management at a college level, and I believe that nature needs more space on this planet. I also believe that conscientious humans and nature can exist side-by-side.  I know that the laws and rules you mention in your letter are for the protection of animal and plant species that deserve protection. However, I still feel that referring to “illegal” trails and “illegal” trail builders insinuates mal-intent. This is not the image I wish to see propagated in the public eye.

Most trails that start out as unauthorized trails are just worn in, and not necessarily constructed. This type of unauthorized trail is usually the result of the trail users seeking a more interesting experience, more exciting terrain or even just a view. This can be completely avoided by good trail planning. A good contour trail will encourage adherence to the trail and require little if any maintenance.  Including interesting terrain in the initial trail plan will keep everyone happy.

I know that in your position and at your level, you and the CNLM deal with these types of legal issues all the time. I think that you understand how precious this little sliver of land is, and how the loss of access has affected so many in a detrimental way. I appreciate the knowledge and insight you share when you elucidate things that are unclear to me. Please continue to share your view of the best way to regain access to this area. Thank you.

I got an email a few weeks ago from someone in your group that asked or stated that they felt that the trail work that was done out at Flightline was not illegal, but just “not authorized”.  Here are some thoughts on that issue.  I’m not trying to incite anything here, but just trying to get your group aware of local, state and federal laws that protect habitat, plants and animals (CON refers to Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, which set aside this land as part of their building permit requirements.) 

When you finally get to the County to try to open this area to biking, you will likely have to deal with all these legal issues, just like a developer has to when he/she proposes a development.  Just a FYI.  Developers that I work with have to “mitigate” for impacts created by trails because of the actual total removal of vegetation (not trimming), such as what was done at Flightline.  I can discuss mitigation in more detail if you would like, it is a term you will soon come to learn!

 Below is a list (does not include all laws and rules!!) of why the trails were illegal (written in part by another one of our staff members):

1)       The creation of the trails is a direct violation of the federal and state endangered species acts (ESAs).  Portions of the habitat (where the trails were created) were set aside for coastal California gnatcatchers (a federally listed threatened species).  At least one gnatcatcher was heard in the area at the top of the trails a few weeks ago.  Both the gnatcatcher and its habitat (occupied) are protected under the ESAs.  Proven violations of the ESAs can result in up to $10,000 in fines and potential jail time.  Currently, the ESAs are being violated because “take” as defined under the ESAs occurred to the gnatcatcher and its habitat.  If the trail creators were caught, they could be responsible for the damage and could have to pay the fines and potentially spend time in jail.

2)       Plants are a little less clear under the federal ESA, but more clear under the State ESA.  Direct impacts were observed to at least one federally and state listed plant.  The southeastern trail that was created impacted (and potentially killed) San Diego thornmint (a listed plant). The USFWS is currently aware of this and saw the damage themselves during a field visit in May 2006. Fines could result from the impacts to this plant as well.  Del Mar manzanita was also impacted.

3)       The northern trail is in direct conflict with the federal Clean Water Act and the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement Process (Section 1600).  The bridge that was built over the stream at the bottom is considered a “structure” that must be permitted and/or at least discussed with the regulatory agencies (USACOE, CDFG and RWQCB) prior to installation.  At least three permits would likely have to be obtained to put in this bridge.  None of those permits were obtained for the bridge; so again, whoever built the bridge is in violation of at least two more environmental laws.  Not to mention the habitat take of this trail, and the impacts to some plant species on this trail protected by Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan.

4)       The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program was also violated during the creation of the trails.  The impacted habitat was set aside under the NCCP as mitigation for the CON development.  If the regulatory agencies wanted to proceed, and the trail builders were caught, they could be required to purchase acreage to compensate for the trail impacts.  This acreage would likely have to be purchased at 6:1 mitigation ratio since the habitat was already mitigation for the CON development.  So, if one acre has been impacted through the illegal trail construction, an additional six acres of the same habitat would have to be purchased in the same watershed.  One acre of this type of vegetation community can cost as much as $25,000.

 In summary, at least six environmental laws were violated with the construction of the eastern and northern trails at Flightline.  There are likely more. 

Markus Spiegelberg
Center for Natural Lands Management