Department of Fish and Game also requests halt to Wavecrest disking

The California Department of Fish and Game has issued a letter recommending suspension of disking [pdf] and other potentially damaging agricultural activity at the Wavecrest site pending further evaluation by state and federal agencies.  Two weeks ago, the California Coastal Commission also asked for the disking to stop.

Addressed to Wavecrest attorneys and copied to a number of city, school district, state and federal authorities, the letter was prompted by extensive mowing and disking at the Wavecrest site two weeks ago in preparation for the cultivation of hay.

The property owners’ attorney says that the disking was monitored by a biologist and that they are "trying to be extra-specially careful".

The Department says that at this time of year any San Francisco garter snake on the property would likely be underground in burrows not visible to observers and unable to escape disking. The Department said that the biologist would have no real impact on the risk of killing snakes.

"(Our) concern is reinforced by reports that at least three garter snakes (species unknown) have already been killed by the discing carried out to date," wrote Robert Floerke, DFG regional manager for the Central Coast Region in the DFG letter, dated Nov. 22.

Under federal law, harming or killing an endangered species such the Red-Legged Frog (which has been found in a different part of Wavecrest) is illegal without a specifically designed plan that assesses and mitigates for "take" of protected animals. Under state law, any take of a San Francisco Garter Snake is illegal, except for scientific study or recovery purposes.

"Based on this information, the Department recommends that discing activities cease," the letter said, until the developer, the state DFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluate the situation and agree upon a management plan consistent with applicable local, state and federal laws.

The letter in closing also clarified that putting the Wavecrest property into agricultural production did not "significantly change the Department’s existing evaluation that the site should be considered habitat ... based on a number of factors, only one of which is the actual physical condition of the property."