Mr. Eric Tattersall

Acting Chief, Conservation Planning & Recovery

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

2800 Cottage Way, W-2605

Sacramento, CA 95825

(916) 414 6713 fax

 

RE:        Proposed Amendment to San Bruno Mountain Incidental Take Permit

               73 Fed. Reg. 20324

 

Dear Mr. Tattersall,

I oppose the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit for the Callippe silverspot and Bay checkerspot butterflies which is based on the weak, opinion-based arguments put forth in the USFWS Environmental Assessment and Biological Study.  Some of the shortcomings of these reports include:

 

1. Faulty Logic

               The EA implies that without this HCP Amendment, no Habitat restoration could take place in Callippe silverspot habitat, and no Habitat Management Plan would be put into effect.  In fact, both of these measures could and should have been put into effect years ago. No development is necessary for this to happen.  It is an example of the faulty logic that has plagued San Bruno Mountain since the HCP was created. When the USFWS claims that the purpose of the HCP is to preserve habitat, it is hiding the destruction of habitat behind false claims that development is needed in order for habitat management. An ITP could be issued soley for habitat restoration, without development.  A Stewardship ITP should have been proposed as one of the alternatives in the EA.

 

2. False Claims of Success/Conflicting claims of significant impacts

               EA pages 10 and 11 state that successful habitat islands have been created within the undisturbed conserved habitat, as well as on development slopes. No study or documentation backs up the assertion except TRAÕs reporting on their own work. This claim was disputed by several people on the TAC.  A field trip to several of these islands led the TAC to defund work on all but two of the islands in 2007 and a shift in the management plan away from creating such islands.

               The BS (p46) says, ÒThe HCP has been successfully implemented to date, and no additional assurances are required.Ó  Yet the EA (p42, p48, p49, p70, p72, 138) repeatedly analyzes the 1989 and the Òno actionÓ alternatives as having significant negative impacts because they would continue habitat management as it has been done over the past 25 years.

               The BS correctly states that the Callippe silverspot host plant, viola pedunculata, has not been successfully propogated.  Yet on p26, in an effort to rationalize the destruction of habitat, it suggests that Òviola located within the temporary and permanent disturbance areas will be transplanted to suitable locations....Ó  Such statements perpetuate the myth that habitat islands are a viable solution to habitat destruction, and are clearly contradicted by years of observation and experience.

 

3. Once a failed plan, still a failed plan

               The EA refers to the Habitat Management Plan, which sets as a goal (p8) the maintenance of 1200 to 1800 acres of grassland.  The lower number represents the grassland today, while the upper number represents the acres of grassland when the HCP went into effect.  Since 1983, the Mountain lost  600 acres of endangered species habitat to development, scrub advance and invasive plant species while  the HCP was in force!! THAT IS FAILURE, NOT SUCCESS.  Neither the USFWS, nor the HCP Trustees have the performance record to warrant further investment in the HCP, meaning further destruction of fragile habitat. The Amendment is the same old plan, spiffed up, relying on the same  tragic formula: trading more endangered species habitat for restoration dollars.

 

4. Endangered Species are not just numbers

               The BS (p 26) suggests that the destruction of Callippe habitat planned for in the development is insignificant when compared with the total number of grassland acres on the mountain. This kind of mathematical slight of hand does a disservice to the serious environmentalists in the USFWS.  For endangered species, no habitat loss is insignificant. If an acre here and an acre there donÕt matter, why does the service endorse spending money on trying to create habitat islands?  The USFWS Biological Opinion (2006) identifies preservation of Callippe habitat as a primary goal.  Once again, one statement by the service contradicts another.

 

5. No new science to inform concerns regarding flight corridors and habitat fragmentation

               The EA and the BS spend a lot of time effort discussing habitat fragmentation and dispersal corridors.  At the heart of the discussion is the concern that the proposed project, together with Guadalupe Canyon Parkway and Carter St., effectively isolate Northeast Ridge populations of Mission Blue and Callippe silverspot.  Isolation leads to a narrowing of genetic diversity, and often extirpation.

While concluding that the project will result in no significant impacts with regard to movement and fragmentation, the service offers no science to back up its claim, and in fact contradicts the science that has been done. (see Callippe LSA July2004 Solano Cnty HCP.pdf)

               The BS, p21 states, ÒThe 2007 VTM increases the amount of development near Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, but it is not expected that this will present a significant barrier to callippe.  The temporary grading in the area adjacent to Guadalupe in the 2007 VTM can be restored to provide hilltop habitat for the callippe and host plant habitat for the Mission blue.Ó Any examination of steeply graded slopes elsewhere on the NER suggests this is a pipedream:  slopes near the site are either highly eroded, infested with fennel and other invasives, or both.

               Though the EA identifies large developments like Crocker Industrial Park as a total flight barrier, dense clusters of tall trees as partial barriers, and paved roads and residential lots as partial barriers to butterfly movement, they end up concluding that Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, a four lane road, will be the backbone of a flight corridor that will prevent habitat fragmentation.  Though observations by a TRA employee of callippe flying across the parkway are sited in the EA, this was by no means a scientific study, and should not overrule the scientific data. The conclusion reached is clearly driven by a desire to approve the project and not on scientific evidence. If a car hits a Callippe trying to use this corridor, will the ITP cover it?  This is not discussed anywhere.

 

6. The BuilderÕs poor track record

               At several points, the EA expresses a faith in the future performance of Brookfield NER IILLC in order to conclude that there are no significant impacts from the project.  An examination of the environmental track record of this builder suggests otherwise:

           1. During the Õ07-Ô08 rainy season, SBMW collected samples of storm water runoff from the ÒBÓ Court, the first phase of the new development.  The samples consistently showed levels of suspended solids above an acceptable level suggesting poor application of BMP designed to prevent such pollution.

           2. Brookfield NER IILLC is still in charge of the homeowners association at Landmark at the Ridge II, which includes the 17 homes built since 2001, just below the proposed project.  The backyards of this planned development were designed to encourage butterfly movement through the ÒcorridorÓ they form, and modifications to houses and yards are strongly discouraged in the CC&Rs agreements new owners sign.  Yet the Homeowners Association approved of a modification to one home that will allow the owners to increase living space into their yard, partially blocking this corridor.

           3. In this same development, a riparian corridor/walkway was established as part of the landscaping.  Formerly the habitat for the Chorus Frog, the corridor was originally designed to provide tadpole habitat.  When tadpoles did show up in one shallow pond this spring, the homeowners association had the ponds pressure washed, destroying the tad poles.

           4. Though the EA trumpets the removal of the eucalyptus trees on the site, these trees were supposed to have been removed years ago as part of the mitigation of projects already developed.  Brookfield only removed the trees last year in anticipation of building.

 

               The EA speculates that impacts to the Callippe silverspot Ò...under the proposed 2007 VTM are mitigated to not significant through Brookfield Northeast Ridge II LLCÕs commitment to preserve the dispersal corridor along Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, preserve high value hilltopping habitat at Callippe Hill, and dedicate endowment funding for increased management of invasive plant speciesÓ.  BrookfieldÕs environmental record simply doesnÕt justify this conclusion.

 

7. Inadequate Funding

               ÒAdequate fundingÓ is one condition to be met for approving the HCP Amendment.  The BA, p71, gives a definition of  ÒAdequate fundingÓ: ÒÉ a funding mechanism which is able to support the monitoring, research, enhancement and other conservation techniques provided for in this HCP for permanent habitat conservation.Ó

Though the new funding proposal is a nice increase over the original plan, it will likely fall short of what is needed in a few years.  This proposal further highlights the failure of the original HCP as it falls victim to the same mistakes.  Its problems spring from several sources:

  1. Neither the HMP, the EA nor the BS explain how the projected yearly cost of habitat management, $455,000, was arrived at.  I have heard estimates twice as large, and 8 times as large, made by experienced people in the field.
  2. Over the last 25 years, the yearly homeowners HCP costs increased by 350%, because the fee is tied to the consumer price index.  Will the homeowners paying $850 per year (while most pay $88) be willing to pay $2975 per year in 25 years while most pay $308?
  3. While the homeowners fees increase with the cost of living increase, the income from the Ònon-wastingÓ endowment do not, since the interest/dividend income will be paid into the habitat management fund.  This will result in a serious shortfall that increases each year.
  4. Assuming a net 5% return on investment may be overly optimistic.

 

               For the reasons given, this funding plan, like the old one, will NOT be adequate. San Mateo County and the HCP have poorly managed San Bruno Mountain to this point.  I object to throwing good money after bad, while again replacing rare habitat with housing.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Ken McIntire

Executive Director, San Bruno Mountain Watch