Monarch Sanctuary Report:
A Breakdown in City Stewardship

November 18, 2009

The recent severe tree trimming of the Monarch Butterflies’ favorite roosting spot in the Pacific Grove Monarch Sanctuary — an L-shaped grove near the south or Ridge Road side of the preserve — raises several issues about the City’s commitment to butterfly stewardship.

This report identifies Monarch-related topics, cites relevant City codes & other State and Council-mandated regulations, and offers areas for immediate and long-term remediation.

Any references to staff actions are not meant to cast blame; rather they are meant as a cautionary reminder that the City must balance its desire to avoid liability against the obligation of habitat protection. By enumerating the recently missed opportunities to protect the Sanctuary as an ecological preserve for the Monarchs, we hope to promote a better balance between docent/visitor safety and Monarch habitat protection by returning to previous practices.

1. The Immediate Issue…………………………………………………….1

2. Relevant City Codes and Mandates…………………………………. 4

3. The Need for a Paper Trail…………..………………………………….7

4. How Did This Happen…………………………………………………..10

5. What Should We Do Now………………………………………………11

1. The Immediate Issue: Tree Trimming at the Monarch Sanctuary

Some time in late September/early October 2009, the prime Monarch roost — a Eucalyptus grove along the fence line in the south end of the Monarch Grove Sanctuary — was severely trimmed by an urban forestry company hired by the City’s Public Works staff.

The problem first came to our attention on November 3, 2009, when Pacific Grove resident Robert Pacelli visited the grove to document this year’s activity. He noticed that many of the Eucalyptus limbs that supported abundant clusters of Monarchs in previous years were missing.

Alarmed at the lack of butterflies, he contacted long-time butterfly advocates and Sanctuary docents Pat and Sally Herrgott, whose 19-year commitment to Monarch stewardship includes oversight during the Diveley property acquisition, shepherding the 1990 bond issue to passage with a 69% majority, and assuming a key role in the formation of the Monarch advocacy group, Friends of the Monarchs. They have contributed time, expertise, and funds to other sanctuary management issues, including hosting PGMNH seminars for world-renown butterfly scientists (including Lincoln Brower) and attending and participating in meetings during the creation of Stuart Weiss’ 1998 habitat management plan.

Below are three before and after photos edited from Mr. Pacelli’s videos comparing conditions in November 2008 to November 2009:

In the days before Mr. Pacelli alerted the Herrgott sisters, emails on the Western Monarch listserv (from amateur scientists Paul Cherubini and Helen Johnson, PGMNH Association Monarch docent Tama Olver, and others) indicate that other Monarch watchers had noticed the severe trimming in mid-to-late October. Celia Perez Martinez told Pat Herrgott in a phone conversation on November 4^th that all work was completed by the cutoff date of October 1^st, but without written documentation, the actual date of the work remains hazy.

Mr. Cherubini’s emails included this note of alarm on October 26^th:

List: western_monarchs
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:35:25 -0700
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch…>
Subject: [western_monarchs] City of Pacific Grove cuts branches off the main cluster trees!

I visited the Monarch Grove Sanctuary in Pacific Grove yesterday and was shocked to see many of the upper branches of the main eucalyptus cluster tree grove had been cut off:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/pga.jpg

Some monterey pine branches had been cut off as well. I could not hardly believe my eyes because it was obvious to me this amount of pruning will substantially degrade the suitability of the Sanctuary as a cluster site and the butterfly population is likely to be substantially lower and less stable this year and for years to come.

Pruning the high branches exposes the lower branches where the clusters form to more light and wind. Example: these are the branches of the eucalyptus grove that the butterflies used for clustering in early Dec. 2008:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/pgb.jpg

But this year a high percentage of the arriving butterflies may “decide” those branches will expose them to too much light and wind and that the Monarch Grove Sanctuary is not a good enough habitat to stay at.

Another problem is that before the City cut the branches, the eucalyptus grove provided only marginal degree of wind protection to the clusters when winds blew from the south or north and now they provide even less protection. So I feel fewer butterflies are likely to “decide” the eucalyptus grove at the Monarch Grove Sanctuary is a good place to cluster in the autumn, hence the butterfly population might plumment 50-80% from years past.

And since the eucalyptus grove now provides even less protection from winter storm gale winds, the butterflies that do stay during the fall months are more likely to abandon the Sanctuary in late Dec or early Jan. instead of staying until late Feb or early March.

It would be wonderful if I am completely wrong, but that’s my view of the probable impact of the City’s pruning.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.[1]

While City rules prohibit work after October 1^st, questions still linger about when the trimming took place. On November 5^th, Pat Herrgott made a request covered by the Public Records Act for a copy of the contract with the tree trimmer, a copy of City Arborist Rick Katen’s work sheet, the invoice detailing work done by the trimmer, and a sign-off sheet from the job — hoping that these documents might shed some light on whether procedures and timing were followed. As of the writing of this report, those requests have not been satisfied. On November 17^th a second Public Records Act request was made by Ms. Herrgott for permits, postings, and plans, and nothing has been received.[2]

2. Relevant City Codes and Mandates

A number of rules and regulations are on the books to assure proper stewardship of the Monarch Sanctuary. In the past, these rules have been followed, and have tempered heavy-handed trimming with conservation oversight.

However, following the City reorganization, transfer of the Museum to a private foundation, and the recent changes in City leadership, participants in earlier habitat reviews are now out of the loop. The City’s role as butterfly stewards has fallen through the cracks, and it seems the 1998 Weiss habitat management report and a municipal code-mandated review by Council of ALL pruning or removal of trees, no matter what time of year, have fallen by the wayside.

When the Museum public-private partnership went into effect earlier this year, the Museum Department ceased to exist on a practical, functioning level as an integrated department of the City. While many of the former tasks of the Museum Department have been assigned to staff and volunteers from the Foundation, Association, and Museum Advisory Board, coverage of less-obvious tasks have been lost. Apparently, Monarch habitat stewardship is one of those lost tasks.

Current Public Works and Museum Foundation staffs seem unaware of the onus put on the City to preserve this specific habitat beyond the requirements of other City parks, and their recent comments have exhibited a cavalier attitude towards the potential harm done by the trimming. At the November 4^th Council meeting, City Manager Tom Frutchey assured the Council and public that all work at the Sanctuary was allowed. Celia Martinez has maintained the same position. And despite her limited connection to Sanctuary habitat management (as laid out in Section 5.07 of City/Museum Foundation Lease Agreement), Museum Foundation staff member Lori Mannel has offered several statements.

While the new scientific advisor to the Museum’s Monarch tagging program, Francis Villablanca, Ph.D. urges

calm minds to prevail until we have some data . . . the story will make itself evident by the Thanksgiving count

no acknowledgement of or explanation for the breakdown in accepted Monarch habitat protections has been given by City or Museum Foundation staff.

Of course everyone concerned about the Monarch habitat wants the butterflies to recover and rebound from this incident. While data gathered in the next few weeks will help determine the causes for the catastrophic drop in 2009 Monarch numbers to date (unofficial estimates from Sanctuary visitors, docents, and Museum staff range from 2 to 1,000, with the most reliable numbers at 500 to 750, compared to 2008’s comparative figures: 12,470 in the Sanctuary on November 4^th and 3,449 at the adjacent private property site on November 6^th), the concern addressed in this report is how were existing safeguards preventing disturbances to the Sanctuary overlooked and how can acceptable protocols be reestablished?

Three of the most important documents in the Monarch protection arsenal are: 1. Municipal Code 12.16.250 Monarch Butterfly Habitats – Protected, 2. Weiss Report, and 3. Monarch Grove Sanctuary Conservation Easement CC&Rs, which are listed as follows.

1. Municipal Code 12.16.250 Monarch Butterfly Habitats – Protected
(a) For the purposes of this chapter, the following sites are designated as monarch butterfly overwintering sites in Pacific Grove:

(1) Monarch Grove Sanctuary. That portion of land bordered on the east and west by Ridge Road and Grove Acre Avenue, respectively, on the south by Short Street, and on the north by the northerly boundary of assessor’s parcel no. 006-361-30 extended from Grove Acre easterly to Ridge Road.

(2) Washington Park Site. That portion of land bordered on the east and west by Alder Street and Melrose Avenue, respectively, on the north by Pine Avenue, and on the south by the imaginary extension of Junipero Avenue westerly from Alder to Melrose.

(b) Pruning or removal of trees in designated monarch butterfly overwintering sites shall be prohibited except as prescribed in an approved habitat management plan or upon a finding by the city council that such is necessary for proper maintenance of the site or for public health, safety or welfare.

(c) Pruning or removal of trees in designated monarch butterfly overwintering sites, or within 100 yards of any boundary of such site, shall be prohibited during the months of October through April unless deemed necessary by the city council for public health, safety or welfare. [Ord. 07-015 § 30, 2007; Ord. 02-13 § 3, 2002. Formerly 12.16.240].[3]

2. Weiss Report

In 1997, City hired Stuart B. Weiss, Ph.D. (Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University) to write a management report to guide the City’s maintenance of the Sanctuary.

In the opening paragraphs of his report, Dr. Weiss notes that:

The study is comprised of two separate reports. This report by Dr. Stuart Weiss covers the aspects of the site that are relevant for monarch butterfly habitat, including meteorological conditions, forest canopy structure, an analysis of hemispherical photography, a restoration plan that suggests options for the composition and configuration of additional tree plantings, suggestions for continued monitoring at the site, and several other issues. The second report, by Steve Scott, assesses the present health of the trees on site, identifies hazards, and presents management guidelines for pitch canker disease.

The two reports are separate because they each deal with the field of expertise of the principle authors. In some cases, the standard management practices for urban forests described in the Scott report may not be appropriate because of adverse impacts on habitat suitability for monarchs. These cases are noted in the Weiss report.[4]

Weiss’ admonition about the need to balance his scientific habitat management plan with Scott’s forestry plan points to an essential element missing in the City’s current actions.

Weiss includes this profile of the area included in the September/October 2009 trimming:

The most important feature of the forest structure on MGS is the “L”-shaped grove of Eucalyptus globulus on the south and far eastern boundary of the site. These trees provide the densest forest canopy, the best wind protection, and it is not surprising that the vast majority of monarch butterfly clusters are found on and near these trees. Several Monterey Pines are interspersed in the Eucalyptus. Foliage is relatively dense at all heights, and the trees appear to act as an effective wind barrier to the south. (p. 6)

In 1998, City Council accepted the report, and Weiss’ Habitat Suitability, Restoration, and Vegetation Management at Monarch Grove Sanctuary, Pacific Grove, California (revised 1998) became the “habitat management plan” cited in M.C.12.16.250(b). Dr. Weiss notes:

Eucalyptus Row trimming

As mentioned in the Scott report, several Eucalyptus branches along the main row of trees appear to be at risk of failure. Critical immediate hazards obviously need to be removed, but indiscriminate large scale trimming and removal of these trees will result in a loss of habitat suitability for monarchs. It is fortunate that Eucalyptus globulus can rapidly form new shoots and branches, so negative impacts of careful trimming may be mitigated after a few years (Weiss, p.19).

3. Monarch Grove Sanctuary Conservation Easement CC&Rs

On November 6, 1990, after much controversy about the fate of what was then know as the Diveley property, the citizens of Pacific Grove decided by a 69% majority to

Incur a bonded indebtedness in the principal amount not to exceed $1,230,000 for the acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation, maintenance, improvement and completion of the following municipal improvement, to wit: An ancient overwintering site for Monarch Butterflies, consisting of a 2.696 acre parcel within the City limits of the City of Pacific Grove.[5]

The State of California’s Wildlife Conservation Board furnished an additional $400,000 towards the purchase of the Diveley property. According to then-City Attorney George Thacher’s Land Use of Monarch Grove Sanctuary Memo to the members of the Monarch Habitat Restoration Committee (December 5, 1994),[6]

The newly adopted general plan also notes that the Monarch Grove Sanctuary is protected as open space and butterfly habitat by the city and state. . . . A portion of the funds used to purchase the sanctuary came from the state, specifically the Wildlife Conservation Board. As a condition of the grant of funds from that board, the city entered into a conservation easement limiting city’s activity on the sanctuary.

The conservation easement issued by the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, State of California (and signed by then-Mayor Flo Schaeffer on July 1, 1992) limits the use of the Sanctuary to:

Preserve, restore and enhance the natural character of the property and prevent its use or development for any purpose or in any manner which would conflict with the maintenance of the property as a refuge for overwintering monarch butterflies.

The easement also states:

There shall be no removal, destruction or cutting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation except as may be necessary for (a) fire breaks, (b) the maintenance of existing foot trails or roads, (c) the prevention or treatment of disease or (d) other good husbandry practices approved by STATE. . . . There shall be no activities, actions or uses detrimental to water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation or fish and wildlife habitat preservation.

While normal, prudent Sanctuary tree trimming and removal routinely claim a CEQA Class 4 Categorical Exemption (minor alterations to land) as set forth in section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines, this applies to minor public alterations of vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. The September/October 2009 work may be beyond the scope of that exemption.

3. The Need for a Paper Trail

In the past, City staff routinely presented plans for Sanctuary maintenance to the Council for approval, irregardless of the calendar date, and appropriate staff reports were included with agendas. This level of Sanctuary stewardship is mandated by the documents cited above.

Examples of previous Council actions that exhibit effective butterfly stewardship include:

1. Item 4d on City Council’s August 3, 2005 agenda: Consider Management Plan Alternatives for the Monarch Sanctuary.[7]

Public Works Director Steve Leiker cited a July 6, 2005 Council report updating issues related to the re-opening of the Monarch Sanctuary. This included a report by the city arborist, oversight by the BNRC, and scientific input from two local habitat experts:

At that time, City Arborist Joe Bileci reported on his findings that had been presented to the Beautification and Natural Resources Committee, and recommended the removal or trimming of several trees. Prior to any decision to remove or trim trees in the Sanctuary, the City engaged Stuart Weiss and Vern Yadon to comment on the potential impact of this work on the habitat within the Sanctuary.

There is general agreement among the experts who have commented on this issue that the removal and trimming of the dead and dying Monterey Pines and Monterey Cypress will not have an adverse impact on the Sanctuary habitat. The only question that remains is how much of the removal and trimming could occur in the next two months and at what cost. In regard to the Eucalyptus trees, there is concern that the removal of some of the unsafe branches could have an adverse impact on the habitat, and securing of these branches is considered a more environmentally sensitive solution. Based on the comments received, staff has identified several options related to the reopening of the Sanctuary. In analyzing the options, staff has considered public safety, protection of the habitat, and the time and cost required to complete the work. The options include:

1. Compromise Approach - Limit access to the Sanctuary, and remove, trim or secure trees that pose a substantial risk to public safety. This option the offers the best balance of limiting the risk of falling trees, maintaining some public access and is achievable from a timing and cost standpoint. In addition, it is not anticipated that this option will create an adverse impact to the habitat.

2. Maximum Public Safety Approach - Remove all dead and dying trees and trim Eucalyptus branches. This option could have significant adverse impacts to the habitat, and could create timing and funding challenges. It would be the most effective approach to limiting our liabilities within the Sanctuary.

3. Maximum Habitat Protection Approach - Close the Sanctuary to public access and perform no tree removal, trimming or securing. While this is the most cost effective short-term solution, our previous involvement in “managing” (i.e., tree planting, trimming and removal) this area may expose us to future liability costs if we allow the area to evolve naturally. In addition, this option has the most negative impact on public enjoyment of the Sanctuary. The Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 12.16.240 (attached) requires that any tree pruning or removal in the Monarch Sanctuary be consistent with an adopted habitat management plan or be approved by finding of the City Council that the action is necessary for proper maintenance of the site or for public health, safety or welfare. The Code also limits such tree pruning and removal to the time between the end of April and beginning of October.

Staff is also recommending that Council provide direction for staff to develop various options for developing a long-term management plan for the Monarch Sanctuary.

Minutes of this meeting indicate that Option #1 was selected:

4D. Mayor Costello introduced City Manager Colangelo who reviewed management plan alternatives for Monarch Sanctuary. Colangelo, Public Works Director Leiker and City Arborist Joe Beleci answered questions from Council. Vern Yadon, John Fischer, David Dilworth and Craig Riddell spoke to the issue. On motion of Schenk, seconded by Costello, Council unanimously found pruning and removal of trees in Monarch Sanctuary necessary for proper maintenance of site or for public health, safety or welfare; approved short-term management plan which includes limitation on public access to Sanctuary; removal of trees posing substantial risk to viewing areas or structures and securing limbs that pose threats to safety; and directed staff to return with alternatives for developing long-term maintenance and re-planting plan.[8]

2. Item 7b on City Council’s November 1, 2006 agenda: Consider Trimming and Removal of Trees in the Monarch Sanctuary Butterfly Habitat Zone[9]

In his report, Public Works Director Steve Leiker noted that:

Monarch butterfly specialist and consulting ecologist Stuart Weiss has reviewed the situation and finds that the tree removals/trimming can proceed with minimal disruption of the monarch habitat.

Leiker also obtained a report from Monterey City Arborist Robert Reid. Stuart Weiss’ report includes guidance for tree and deadwood removal in the Sanctuary:

On October 23, 2006 I visited the Monarch Grove Sanctuary (MGS) with Steve Leiker to qualitatively assess the impacts of three tree removals and removal of deadwood from an additional tree. These observations, conclusions, and recommendations are based on discussions during the site visit, the 1997-98 scientific report on MGS, subsequent site visits, and my long term experience with California and Mexican monarch habitat assessment.

The monarch phenomenon is extremely dynamic over short and long time scales. The key to local monarch habitat suitability is the forest canopy microclimate that protects against wind and temperature extremes. Long-term habitat suitability is determined by forest dynamics over decades as trees establish, grow, and die and canopies open and close.

As background, please consult the 1998 report for how these factors play out at MGS. The chosen restoration plan (minimal Eucalyptus) has been partially implemented with the planting of one row of Eucalyptus globulus in 1999 to provide wind protection from the NW. Note that the canopy structure of MGS has changed greatly since that report – primarily losses of mature Monterey Pines — and that no new measurements have been made since 1997. All of these recommendations are based on qualitative assessments: the need for new quantitative assessments and establishment of a formal adaptive management process is discussed below.

Recommendations
Specific to the proposed tree removals and their long-term effect on monarch habitat suitability, I have the following observations and comments:

1) Tree #1 – This Monterey Pine has minimal live canopy and is likely to be completely dead within a few years (Photo 1). Its location near the trail creates a safety hazard. The effect of its removal is mitigated by adjacent trees, and that what wind protection it provides is from the NE, not a major high wind direction. Removal can proceed with minimal disruption of monarch habitat.

2) Tree # 2 – This leaning Monterey Pine (center of Photo 2) has a slightly more robust canopy than Tree #1, but its lean creates a hazard. Its canopy abuts the adjacent eucalyptus, which mitigates impacts of removal on wind exposure. Removal can proceed with minimal disruption of monarch habitat.

3) Tree # 3 is proposed for removal of deadwood. Removal of this deadwood does not significantly influence wind protection, and its location near the trail makes it especially hazardous.

4) Tree # 4 is outside the sanctuary at 277 Grove Acre, and is proposed for total removal because of crown dieback and powerline issues (Photo 3). This tree does potentially provide some wind shelter from the SW, an important direction. But, it is backed up by row of eucalyptus along the southern boundary of the sanctuary (behind the tree in Photo 3) which provides effective wind shelter within the sanctuary. Note that the tree is barely visible behind the eucalyptus in Photo #4.

5) Careful execution of the removals and trimming should minimally disrupt the monarchs in the grove.

Need for a long-term management plan
I want to re-emphasize the necessity for a long-term adaptive management plan and process as outlined in my May 2006 letter. Anticipating tree management needs well in advance will avoid the need to execute removal and trimming during the overwintering season.

3. Item 3a on City Council’s April 1, 2009 agenda: Immediate removal of a dead Monterey Pine tree at 1037 Short Street.[10]

Business Manager Celia Martinez Perez’ report included confirmation that staff had received basic guidelines from Ventana Wildlife Society biologist Jessica Griffiths to assure that work was keeping within prescribed wildlife management parameters. The item was approved and Council directed:

the Public Works Department to issue an emergency permit for a licensed private contractor to remove said tree.

In all of the three instances cited above, proper procedures were observed, and qualified habitat scientists were consulted.

4. How Did This Happen?

While we do not now know what the short- and long-term implications of the resultant habitat degradation at the prime Eucalyptus grove will be, we can point to a series of factors contributing to the recent ecologically insensitive trimming of Monarch habitat.

There has been a large turnover of personnel since the City’s major reorganization began under former City Manager Jim Colangelo. Department head positions were eliminated with the false assumption that the deputy city manager would assume upper-level management tasks. As a result, a disruption in corporate memory affected many areas of City functions. In the case of the Monarch Sanctuary, this breakdown of communication is a result of new staff members without long-term familiarity with the unique requirements of habitat conservation issues. The misreading of the Sanctuary-relevant section of municipal code about when Council approval must be sought and confusion about finding City records, including the Weiss management plan, are prime examples of this breakdown in communication.

The staff and governing board directors of the Museum Foundation are no longer directly affiliated with the City, and are all relatively unfamiliar with City policies. When the Friends of the Monarchs disbanded a few years ago, the PGMNH Association accepted the role of Monarch docent trainers, schedulers, and advocates. Since then, the city signed a lease agreement which gives the Foundation charge of running the docent program (Section 5.07). But since the merging of the Association and Foundation has yet to be accomplished, there is a conflict of understanding whether the Association runs the program or the Foundation (this is one of the many terms of the lease agreement still under development). No matter which agency at the Museum runs the Monarch docent program, the lease agreement makes it very clear that the City maintains control of the Sanctuary itself, and the Museum Foundation is only tasked with a docent program.

During a November 4^th phone conversation, Pat Herrgott was told by Celia Martinez that the Fall 2009 trimming was complaint driven, and that the complaint was filed through PGMNH Foundation employee Lori Mannel. Paul Cherubini, an entomologist from El Dorado, CA had contacted Lori Mannel to share his concern about the work in the Sanctuary, not knowing that the Museum is no longer under direct City control, and that the Museum Director is no longer a City employee. Unbeknownst to him, Museum staff has no authority or competency to speak on or answer questions about the City’s Sanctuary. In response to Mr. Cherubini’s concern that the Monarch population will decline this year by 50% - 80% because the Monarch’s wind canopy has been compromised by the trimming, Lori Mannel stepped in and offered this answer:

The Museum’s official stance is that the City absolutely had to trim the Sanctuary trees for public safety and for the safety of our Sanctuary docents. Our Museum Sanctuary docents count the Sanctuary’s Monarch population almost every week so we will have clear data to validate/invalidate Paul’s concerns as the Monarch season progresses. The Monarch population peaks in late Nov to early Dec so we’ll know soon enough.

5. What Should We Do Now?

To assure this breach of conservation-minded Sanctuary management, we urge the City to:

· Acknowledge the gulf between best Monarch habitat practices and recent actions.

· Follow its existing rules and established procedures for managing Monarch habitat.

· Reestablish ties with Stuart Weiss as soon as possible. He has expressed interest in continuing his relationship as our consulting habitat specialist, and the City should seek his advice about the implications of the Fall 2009 pruning and whether immediate mitigation is possible and/or advisable. His recommendations for longer-term improvements to City habitat protocol and management practices should also sought and reviewed.

· Improve access to relevant documents. Make sure people involved with the maintenance of the Sanctuary and educational outreach about the Pacific Grove Monarch phenomenon have copies of Weiss’ plan, and have read it. Fulfill Public Records Act inquiries.

· Advise Museum Foundation personnel to pass public questions concerning Monarch habitat maintenance to City personnel and let the City staff speak for the City.

· Be good stewards of the Monarch Sanctuary, and balance risk-management forestry concerns with habitat preservation mandates.

_________________________________ _________________________________

Patricia Herrgott Nov. 18, 2009 Sally Herrgott Nov. 18, 2009

________________________________ _________________________________

Bob Pacelli Nov. 18, 2009 Esther Trosow Nov. 18, 2009