HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 140-1982RESOLUTION NO. 140-82
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
LICENSE/PERMIT APPLICATION TO DEPART-
MENT OF INTERIOR, U.S. FISH AND WILD-
LIFE SERVICE TO TAKE MISSION BLUE AND
SAN BRUNO ELFIN BUTTERFLIES AND SAN
FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKES
that:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
1. Execution of Application.
The application to the Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for a license to take Mission Blue and San Bruno Elfin butter-
flies and San Francisco Garter Snakes, which applicati, on is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A," is hereby approved and authorized to be submitted to the Departs'
ment of Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2, Signatures.
The City Manager is authorized to execute said application on behalf
of the City, and the City Clerk attest his signature thereto.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced
and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a special
meeting held on the 15thday of November , 1982, by the following
vote:
AYES' Councilmembers Ronald G. Acosta, Emanuele N. Damonte, Gus Nicolopulos;
and Roberta Cerri Teglia
NOES: Councilmember Mark N. Addiego
ABSENT: None
ATTEST'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
On this 15th day of November, in the year
1982, before me C. Walter Birkelo, City Manager,
personally appeared, he is known to me as the City
Manager of the City of South San Francisco, a City
GoVernment in the City of South San Francisco,
California, and known to me to be the person who
executed the Department of the Interior U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Federal Fish and Wildlife
License/Permit Application on behalf of the City of
South San Francisco and acknowledged to, me that
,,
such City of South San Francisco executed the same.
'City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
S-E-A-L
,o I
'111i
D~ART~EJqT OF ~E INTERIOR
IJ.S. ,cISH AND WILDLhCE SERVICE
FEDERAL FISH AHD WILDLIFE
UCENSE/PERMIT APPLICATION
City of Daly City, CA
City of South san Francisco, CA
(See attached for address and
~ IF "AP~UCAN~ IS AN ~N~vI~A~ ~V~ ~ FO~NG:
O/~T~'OF ~RTH
H£1G, H 1' WEIC~.IT
COLO~ H~.IN COt.Ol~ EYES
PHONE NUM~I~ wHEI~E E%41~..OY(O .~)CIAL. S~(~JI~iTY NUMB(I~
OCCUPATION
ANY' BIJ~N(S$. ~.GF.),ICY. OR INSTITUTIONAL. AFFILIATION HAVING
O~t8 NO. 4Z-i~IIT0
Z. ~lqlEF DESCRIPTION OF' ACTIVITY FO~ wl.4~ ~4~)t~'~"(4~ UCE'J~S~'
Incidental taking of Mission Blue
butterflies.
· Incidental taking of San Bruno Elfin
butter flie~.
Incidental taking of San Francisco
Garter Snakes.
~ IF #AI=I=t, JCANII"' IS A BUSINESS. COiqI~OPlAI'ION. I~BL,IC AGEHCY.
OR INSTIT%,t TlC)el. COMPL,.ET~ THC FOt.3.OWING:
(.XP~M~tN TY~' OR ~INC) OF' 13U~Ni~T)~ /~-~'J4CY, O1~ INSTITMTION
Public agencies: One county
and three'cities.
LOCATION WHERE Pfe0l=OSEO ACTIVITY IS TO B( C0NOUCT(O
San Bruno Mountain,
San Mateo County, CA
~. OO ¥O~/ HO(.O ANY CU~AENTt.Y VALID Ff'O(~A(. FI~ AND
wI~UF~ LIC~ O~ ~MI T? ~ Y~S ~ NO
~ N/A
~. CERTIFI(O CHE:CK OR MONEY OR0(~ (;t ,~ffic,&t,I I"AYaet,~ TO 10. O~S~O EFF~CTIv~ 1~. ~NATI~ N~O
. , N/A 1/1/83 (See attached.)
A~A~O. IT C~S~T(S ~ iNT(GRA~ ~ART OF THiS APP~eCATe~. LIST S~CTiON$ OF ~ CF~ UH~N ~l~ ATTACH~T$ AR(
P~VIOEO.
50 C.F.R. §17.22
CERTIFICATIQI<
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AHD k~ FAMILIAR WlT~ THE RECULATIOHS CONTAINED IN TITLE ~C), PART 13. OF THE COOE OF FEOERAL
RECULATION$ AND THE OTHER APPLICABL. E PARTS IN SUBCHAPTER B OF CHAPTER I OP TITI. E SO, AHD I FURTItER CERTIFY THAT THE INFOR-
MATION SUBMITTED IN THIS APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE/PERil T IS COMPLETE AHO ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF ~T KHO'ArI. EOGE ANO SE[LIEF.
I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FALSE STATE#EHT HEREIN NAY SUBJECT ~4E TO THE CRI#IHAL PEHAC, TIES OI= II If.S.C.
(See attached.)
~/~41
*REVISED 10'/05/82
[:¢ t'
II !l dl
5567-78
IIIMll :.'EM II#lMi
ATTACHMENTS TO SECTION 10(a) PERMIT APPLICATION
Page One
3. Board of Supervisors
County of San Mateo
County Government Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
(415) 363-4000
City Manager
City of Brisbane
44 Visitacion Avenue
Brisbane, CA 94005
(415) 467-1515
City Manager
City of Daly City
90th and Sullivan Streets
Daly City, CA 94015
(415) 992-4500
City Manager
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(415) 877-8518
~
Edward J. Bacciocco, Jr., (415) 363-4000
Chairman, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Paul Koenig, Director of Environmental Management
Richard B. Kerwin, City Manager, (415) 467-1515
Brisbane
David Rowe, City Manager, (415) 992-4500
Daly ..City
Walter Birkelo, City Manager, (415) 877-8518
City of South San Francisco
11. The applicants need a permit which is valid for an initial 30
year term, subject to extensions and renewals as set forth in
the Agreement attached hereto (Section V(H)),
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I haVe read and am familiar with the
regulations contained in' Title 50, Part 13, of the Code of.Federal
Regulations and the'other applicable parts in Subchapter 8 of
Chapter 1 of Title 50, and I further certify that the information
submitted in this application fOr a license/permit is complete and
-1-
accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that
any false statement herein may subject me to the criminal penalties
of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Signature Date
Edward ~J. acciocco, Chairman
Board 9~ Superv~ors/'
Coun~/f San ~e~ /
RiChard BT Ke~wihl ' -
City Manager
.City of Brisbane
David Rowe, City Manager
City of Daly City
W0a~l t~e r~B ir~e~l -~-,~C ~t~y ~an ag e r
City of South San Francisco
OOT 1 9 198Z
NOV 1 5 198~
-2-
ENDANGERED SPECIES
£. COMPLETE THE FOLLOU£NG:
See attached.
t~cLeatLtLc namE)
(Con,non name)
/Numb e ~__._ Age. ·
bo
the' ti~me st appltcat~iba, the wi[dl£L"e sous;hr co be covered: ~lr £s still ~n v~[d
/~ has bees ~emoved ecoa the wild --
(CouuCry G place of ca,vel)
~7 vas ts/sad [. captivity
(country and place ~ece wildlife was boca)
Sex
do
Attempts to obtain the wltdt£fe in a manner ~£ch would not cause Che death or removal, from
the wild.
See attached.
A complete description and address of the institution or faciEity uhece'the wildlife wlt£
be used, displayed or maintained.
N/A - None will be used, displayed or maintained at any institution or facility.
It. AT~ACH THE FOLLO~£NG ZNFOR.q~T[ON ON PLAIN ~H£YE PAPER:
f.
Copies of contracts amd agreements relating I:o ~'he perm[t, including: the
persons ~.o...w_~_.~.t_..e.n.$.a..g.e [n__.K.h.e aCC_~.v~.~ie.s..and _the daCes____o[[ such a¢Civicies.
A s~acemeac jusc£ey£ng the permit, including:
(J~DetaiLs of the activities (aCt:ach research proposals, if app¢opr£ate),
(~) HDV the activities will be carried DUC.
,.~3~) ~e cetac[oflsh[p to sctencietc objectives or to enhaflctn& the propagation or survival
of the wildlife {~vo[ved.
~) PLanned~[spoo/C[on of the wildlife upon Cern[nation of the activities.
££[. IF LIVE ~[LDL£FE tS TO BE COVERED BY THE PERM[T:
.3)
Attach photographs DC diagrams of the area and facilities where witdt£fe will be housed
and cared for.
..2.)_.Give a brief resume of the technical expertise of the persons who ~ttt care for such
wltdttfe including any' experience the applicant or his personnel have had in
caring for, and propagating similar vitdttfe or any closely refaced
indicate your ~ttingness co participate tn a cooperative breedln& proKram or Ko
contribute data to a studbook.
Describe the type. 'st~e and conntrUc:[on o~ att c°n:atnecs ~itdtt~e ~ttt be placed
duc[n8 transportation or temporary storage. ~f any, and ~he arrangements for feeding.
~ate, rtng, and other~tse.carLn8 for i: during that period.
Provide a detailed description of att mortal/ties during the .preceding ~ years
votvta~ the species coveted in the application and held by the applicant (o~ any
othe~ uLtdttee of the ,~e ~enus DC family held by the applicant), inctudLn~ the
causes of such mortal/ties and :he steps taken Co avoid or decrease such mortalities.
ATTACHMENTS TO SECTION 10(a) PERMIT APPLICATION
Page Two
I(a) Plebejus (=Icariocia) icarioides missionensis - Mission Blue
Butterfly
Number: Approximately 13% of the Mission Blue's habitat will be
destroyed; the number of butterflies that will be
destroyed in unknown.
Age: All ages.
Sex: Both sexes.
Callophrys mosii bayensis - San Bruno Elfin Butterfly
Number: Only Elfin found outside of their habitat-are to be taken;
the number is unknown, but is estimated to be minimal; the
habitat is shown on Exhibit "J" to the Agreement which is
attached hereto.
Age: All ages,
Sex: Both sexes.
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia - San Francisco Garter Snake
Number: Only snakes found outside of their habitat are covered
by this permit. Their number is unknown, but is expected
to be small or none. The habitat boundaries are shown on
Exhibit "K" to the Agreement which is attached hereto.
Age: All ages.
Sex: Both sexes.
I(c) Mission Blue Butterfly: None Possible.
'San Bruno Elfin: No habitat will be destroyed. Takings will be
accidental and incidental to other activities.
San Francisco Garter Snake: No habitat will be destroyed,
will be accidental and incidental to other activities.
Takings
II(f) (1) List of Documents Attached:
1. Endangered Species Survey, San Bruno Mountain, Biological
Study - 1980-1981.
-1-
·
·
Habitat Conservation Plan - two volumes (referred to herein as
the HCP).
Agreement With Respect To The San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat
Conservation Plan signed by participating landowners and
developers and by the cities of Brisbane, Daly City, South San
Francisco, by the County of San Mateo and by the California
Department of Fish and Game, the California Department of
Parks and Recreation and the USF&WS (referred to herein as the
"Agreement").
II(f) (2) Identity of Persons:
Persons under the direct control of the county or one of the
three cities. Dates: 1983-2013 and thereafter, as necessary.
II (g) Statement Justifying Permit:
1. Mission Blue Butterfly:
The permit, conditioned on compliance with the attached
Agreement, will provide the endangered Mission Blue butterfly with
a better chance at survival than it now has. The butterfly is
threatened by continuing destruction and vandalism of its habitat
and by the. threat of biological succession to its habitat areas.
Much of the butterfly habitat is located on privately owned land.
Past unmitigated development proposals would have substantially
threatened the~butterflies. The plan provides a comprehensive and
permanent resolution to the development proposals and creates a
financial and institutional structure for protecting the butterfly
habitat from the threats of succession and vandalism.
Money to conserve and maintain its habitat will only be
forthcoming if a portion of its habitat can be developed by private
parties. If development is permitted, those parties will agree to
the establishment of'a permanent habitat conservation funding
source. These issues are discussed in detail in the attached HCP
and Biolo.~ical Study. Also discussed in the HCP are: (1) details
of the activities, (2) how the activities will be carried out, and
(3) the relationship to scientific objectives or to enhancing the
.propagation or survival of the butterflies.
The butterflies which are taken by the permit are those which
will be inadvertently killed in the course of grading and construc-
tion. They will be covered up by grading debris on the site or
transported, along with fill material, to other sites and deposited
there. It is extremely unlikely that those involved in grading and
construction will be able to tell when a butterfly (adult, larvae,
or egg) has been killed, because the butterflies are so small, and
will be mixed in with dirt and vegetation in the course of grading.
It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to dispose of
the dead butterflies any other way.
-2-
III '111[
This permit meets the issuance criteria se forth in 50 C F R
§17.22(b). The purpose for which the permit is required is the
taking of endangered butterflies in connection with development and
in connection with a plan for preservation of their remaining
habitat. Without the habitat conservation plan, the butterflies
may become extinct. The habitat conservation plan cannot be funded
without the development. The development Cannot proceed without
the permit. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of the permit is the
establishment of a habitat conservation plan for the butterflies.
The creation and funding of such a plan is adequate to justify
changing the status of the butterflies sought to be covered by the
permit (50 C.F.R. §17.22(b) (1)).
The probable direct and indirect effect on the wild population
of butterflies is two-fold. The butterflies sought to be covered
by the permit will probably be killed or injured.~ Their habitat
will be reduced or destroyed. The remaining wild population will
benefit because its habitat will be preserved forever and mainte-
nance of its habitat will be funded forever. The butterflies will
suffer a. short-term loss in order to achieve a long-term gain.
(50 C.F.R. §17.22(b) (2))
The permit and habitat conservation plan will not Conflict
with any known program intended to enhance the survival probabil-
ities of the population from which the wildlife sought to be
covered by the permit would be removed. There are no such programs
in existence. No recovery plan has been approved (50 C.F.R.
§17.22(b) (3)).
This permit is intended to result in the establishment and
funding of the'Habitat Conservation Plan for the Mission Blue and
Callippe Silverspot butterflies. Butterflies will be taken under
-the permit, but the habitat maintained or enhanced in exchange for
the loss of the development areas will maximize the overall prob-
ability that the Mission Blue will survive. Without the HCP, the
butterflies would probably go extinct. The HCP will therefore
reduce the threat of extinction (50 C.F.R. §17.22(b) (4)).
The Secretary is required to consider the views of scientists
or other persons having expertise concerning the butterflies or
other mat~ers germane to this application. Comments of such people
were soliCited in connection with the environmental documents
prepared, on this project pursuant to NEPA and CEQA. Those comments
.are attached hereto. (50 C.F.R. §17.22(b) (5))
The expertise, facilities and other resources available to the
applicant are adequate to successfully accomplish the objectives of
the permit and the Agreement. The Agreement provides funding for
habitat conservation in the amount of $60,000.00 annually, to be
adjusted annually for inflation. San Mateo County will act as Plan
Operator to perform much of the habitat conservation and mainte-
nance and will contract with outside experts when necessary. The
Operator will employ a Habitat Manager who will perform the day-to-
day administration of the Habitat Conservation Plan. His time will
be spent'primarily 'in the field, but he will also be available to
-3-
attend public meetings, meetings with.public age'ncies, developer
conferences, etc. The Manager's background should include academic
training as a biologist with a degree of M.A. or higher. His
qualifications should also include several years of professional or
research experience with Northern California ecological communities
such as those found on San Bruno Mountain, and knowledge of the
population biology and ecology of the lepidoptera.
The Operator will also provide, either by maintaining facil-
ities or by appropriate contracting for services:
o computer data base maintenanCe and analysis
o collection and propagation of plants native to San Bruno
Mountain for use in reclamation and enhancement
o four-wheel drive vehicle or other specialized transporta-
tion equipment as needed for clearing brush, applying
herbicide, irrigating plants, etc.
o personnel and equipment for effective, safe prescribed
burns (as needed)
The Habitat Conservation Plan provides that the work of
maintenance and conservation will be done under the supervision of
a scientist and under the supervision of a technical advisory
committee (TAC). The TAC shall be composed of representatives of
the USF&WS, CDFG, the County of San Mateo, the cities of Brisbane,
Daly City and South San Francisco, Visitacion Associates, the
Committee to Save San Bruno Mountain, and a biologist appointed by
the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Trust (50 C.F.R.
Section 17.22(b) (6)). The permit application thus meets all of the
criteria set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The permit application also meets the criteria set forth in
the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1539(d)). This permit is
applied for in good faith as demonstrated by the thorough and
extensive scientific work done (see the 1981 Biological Study and
the Habitat Conservation Plan, attached to this permit as
exhibits)~ the broad spectrum of interests represented in the
planning process for this permit and Agreement, and as demonstrated
by the participation of many local, state and national public
agencies in this project. This permit will not operate to the
disadvantage of the endangered butterflies. To the contrary, it
will probably give them a better chance to survive than they would
have without the permit and Agreement. This permit will be con-
sistent with the purposes and policy set forth in §1531 of the
Endangered Species Act. The permit and Agreement "provide a means
whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species
depend may be conserved" and "provide a program for the conserva-
tion of such endangered species and threatened species". A permit,
granted by the Secretary and conditioned on compliance with the
Agreement, will carry out Congress' policy that "all Federal
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered'species
and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in
-4-
furtherance of the purposes of" the Endangered ~pecies Act
(16 U.S.C. §1531).
2. San Bruno Elfin
The habitat of the San Bruno Elfin on San Bruno Mountain has
been mapped by Thomas Reid Associates. (See Exhibit "J" to the
Agreement.) The applicants for this Section 10(a) permit do not
seek authorization to take Elfin within the habitat area shown on
Exhibit "J". The applicants ask that this Section 10(a) permit
authorize only takings outside of the habitat area shown on Exhibit
"J" which are accidental and incidental to the work of construction
which will take place on other areas of San Bruno Mountain. It is
anticipated that very few, and maybe no, Elfin will be taken.
Those that may be taken will be outside of their habitat and will
be accidentally and incidentally taken by construction workers in
the course of their work. The Elfin which are taken under the
permit will not be preserved.
Funds provided under the Agreement will be used, in part, to
enhance the Elfin habitat by patrolling it to prevent further its
degradation, especially degradation by off-road vehicles.
This application meets the criteria in 50 C.F.R. §17.22(b) in
that the purpose for which the permit is required is the incidental
taking of Elfin in connection with development and in connection
with the provision of funds to patrol their entire habitat area.
Without such funds, the habitat would continue to be destroyed by
off-road vehicles. Patrolling to prevent such destruction cannot
be funded without the development. The development cannot proceed
without the permit. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of the permit
is to fund a plan for patrolling the Elfin habitat to enhance the
'survival of the Elfin. The creation and funding of such a plan is
adequate to justify a permit for the accidental incidental taking
of Elfin (50 C.F.R. §17.22(b) (1)).
The probable direct effect of issuing the permit is that a
very few Elfin will be taken. The probable indirect effect is that
the Elfin habitat will be patrolled and the extent of degradation
of off-road vehicles will be reduced (50 C.F.R. S17.22(b) (2)).
The permit will not conflict with any' known program intended
to enhance the survival probabilities of the Elfin (50 C.F.R.
§17.22(b) (3)).
The purpose for which the permit is required would be likely
to reduce the threat of extinction facing the Elfin in that
destruction of the habitat will be reduced and very few, if any,
Elfin will actually be taken under the permit (50 C.F.R.
S17.22(b) (4)).
The comments of scientists or other persons with expertise
must be considered by the Secretary and such comments are included
in the letters attached to this permit. ·
-5-
The expertise, facilities and other resources available to the
applicants appear adequate to accomplish the objectives, as set
forth in the discussion of the Mission Blue, supra.
3. San Francisco Garter Snake
The San Francisco Garter Snake has not been seen recently on
San Bruno Mountain. Suitable habitat of the snake has been mapped
by Ted Papenfuss, Research Herpetologist at the University of
California, Berkeley, California. (See Exhibit "K" to the Agree-
ment.) The applicants for the Section 10(a) permit seek authoriza-
tion to take the snake within any of the suitable or marginal
habitat shown on Exhibit "K". ~(The applicants ask that the permit
authorize incidental takings within Development Areas as described
in the Agreement.)
The proposed permit for the San Francisco Garter Snake meets
the issuance criteria set forth in 50 C.F.R. §17.22(b). The
purpose of the permit is to allow takings incidental to construc-
tion in Development Areas. Under the Agreement, takings are not
permitted in snake habitat without an amendment to the Section
10(a) permit. Under the Agreement, snake habitat will be enhanced
if any are found. Enhancement of snake habitat cannot be funded
without development. Development cannot proceed without a permit.
The ultimate purpose of the permit is the establishment of a plan
to enhance snake habitat if snakes are found. The creation and
funding of such a plan is adequate to justify a permit for removal
of snakes to suitable habitat if they are found (50 C.F.R.
17.22(b) (1)).
The probable direct and indirect effect of the permit on the
snakes is that there will be no effect. Snakes have not been seen
on the mountain recently and a search for them conducted in Septem-
ber, 1982, turned up no snakes. Therefore, it is probable that no
snakes will be found either inside or outside of the suitable
habitat area (50 C.F.R. §17.22(b) (2)).
The permit will not conflict with any known program intended
to enhance the survival probabilities of the snakes (50 C.F.R.
§17.22(b) (3)). The permit will reduce the threat of extinction if
snakes are found, because their habitat will then be enhanced (50
C.F.R. §1~'22(b) (4)). The views of Ted Papenfuss of U.C. Berkeley
have been taken into account in the Agreement (50 C.F.R.
§17.22(b) (5)).
The expertise, facilities and other resources available to the
applicant are adequate to successfully accomplish the permit
objectives.
III.
I ·
N/A-- The wildlife will not be housed or cared for in any
facilities.
-6-
,,,~ iiii '1
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. The butterflies and snakes (if found) will not be placed in
any containers, stored or tranSported.
5. During the preceding five years, the County of San Mateo
contracted with Thomas Reid Associates for the biological
study conducted in 1980-1981, and attached as an exhibit.
During that study, approximately 1,500 Mission Blue were
handled in a large-scale, mark-release-recapture program.
Thomas Reid Associates estimates that approximately 5% (75
individuals) of the butterflies handled experienced direct
mortality or accelerated wear affecting their life expectancy.
Loss is estimated at less than 1/2% of the adult population.
Mortality was caused by handling. The steps taken to avoid or
decrease such mortalities were extensive training and super-
vision of those participating in the program, as outlined in
the Section 10(a) permit under which the work was done. Under
the HCP, it is anticipated that a large-scale, mark-release-
recapture program will be conducted very infrequently, if at
all. There may be some handling for monitoring, probably
resulting in loss of fewer than 20 individuals per year.
-7-
STANFORD UNIVERSITY.' STANFORD. ~ALIFORNIA 0,400,5
PAUL lq. EHRLIGH
~BING PROFESSOR OF POPULATION STUDIES
DEP. A.RT.MEN-r OF BIOLOOIGAL SGIENGES
August 20, 1982
Mr. Paul M. Koenig
Director of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Services
County of San Mateo
County Government Center
Redwood'City, CA 94063
Dear Mr. Koenig:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the report of Thomas
Reid Associates on their study conducted on the Mission Blue
(~l~hejus 3car~o~d~_~ m~.~onen~) and the Callippe Silverspot
(Speyer~a g~] ] {Dp~- .cal] ~pp~.) at San Bruno Mountain.
This "biological study" is unquestionably the most' thorough
and well conceived "EIR-type" report to ever pass through these
offices. TRA.has consulted at various times during the study
with nearly all Northern California specialists in appropriate
fields, which is 'reflected in the totally up-to-date approach and
metodology designed after some of the most successful long-term
studies in population biology. This does not mean, of course,
that interpretation of the resulting data is particularly simple
or straight forward. Population size assessments are cst~mate~
only, larval and adult resource relationships may be identified
but are still poorly understood, and habitat requirements can
only be guessed. This is not an attack on this report but a
caveat --~this is a new field and just now barely becoming able
to answer such questions
.
I have learned from various fieldworkers and consultants
Connected with the project that it was thorough,, well-coordinated
and professionally run. Data analyses appear to be equally well
done. I will not provide a critique of the techniques per se.
However, I should like to point out that in light of the
logistical difficulties inherent' in this project (deployment of
large numbers of personnel under conditions of rugged terrain and
poor weather), the amount of data successfully collected is
laudable. The comments here will be restricted to the
interpretation of those data which are most important to land use
decisions. - '
The means by which both species' population size. s and
distributions ~ere assessed was the standard mark-re~ease-
recapture technique largely developed in this lab. The .~esults
for these t'wo species were mixed. While there were only slightly
more (20%) first captures of the large, vagile Spey~_r~ .cal]ipp~,
when compared to ~]e~b~ju,~ ~a~io~des, the recapture rates for
S~ey-r~a were nearly 300% that of ]~]ebej~.~. Confidence in the
population estimates and dispersal findings are therefore
dramatically higher for ,qg~-y-r{a. ·
There is little doubt that the maps presented (III-6 and IV-
5), accurately reflect the general distributions of both
butterflies .on SBM in 1981. Furthermore this is the only
peninsula location for ,gpey-r~a call~DDe ~al]~pD~-. A point not
mentioned in reference'to the distribution of ~--be-j,~,~ is that
individuals from populations as nearby as the junction o~ ~wys.
280 and 92 in San Mateo County possess the East Bay
Dardal~s phenotype, hence are extremely distinct.
It should be reinforced that interpretations of first
capture distributions from a single flight season can be
misleading because 1) particularly dry years, such as 1981, may
result in disproportionally high adult concentrations on more
mesic parts of the mountain, and 2) peripheral areas that may
usually lack large numbers of butterflies can be crucial to the
long-term survival of butterflies on the mountain.
The recorded movement~ of ~peyer~a ~a]]~ppe show a rather
high rate of individuals moving distances of 1 mile or more
(about 5% of recaptures). It is therefore virtually certain that
Guadalupe Hills and Southwest Ridge centers of density are part
of one genetic population. It is probably equally likely that
these population centers largely fluctuate independently from
year to year, and that the long-term survival of one center may
depend on the other.
S'o few recaptures were recorded for Mission Blues that
conclusions really cannot be drawn regarding the limits of the
demographic unit or units involved. An important interpretation
is made gnp. III-ii--that about 10% of Mission Blues move
greater %hah 2000' during their lifetimes. In fact 10% of
recaptures moved that distance, or only 1% of total handled
butterflies'~moved such distances. At that rate of recapture
~-sampling err6r is large. Indeed the capacity for such movement
is'indicated, but the rate of exchange of Mission Blues between
distant points on SBM really cannot be ascertained.
Additionally, the reproductive condition of transfering
individuals and the time of transfer are critical for migration
to translate to reproductive contribution and gene flow. With
this in mind it would probably be safest to assume that Northeast
and Southeast Ridge Mission Blues are from distinct colonies
though TRA's interpretation is not inconsistent with the data.
These interpretations are key when estimating the sizes of
demographic units on the mountain. However, regardless of
interpretation, it is obvious that for both species the major
population centers are large enough to dismiss the possiblility
'of inbreeding- How small populations and habitats can Re before
deleterious inbreeding effects, in the butterfly populations would
be noticed is unknown, but from work with ~uDh¥~ryas Ddi~h~ it
appears that populations will normally go extinct before such
effects become obvious. However, maintaining genetic diversity
over the long-term to allow for evolutionary adaptation is
another issue. The increased isolation of these populations due
to the loss of-neighboring colonies throughout the-peninsula,
together with the population size fluctuations that will likely
occur naturally over the decades to come may lead to a gradual
loss of genetic variability due to "drift". The only way to
mitigate this problem is to maintain as large and stable
populations as possible. This should be a principle objective of
the HCP.
Habitats as small as 2~ acres for ~p~_ver(~ .c~ll(Dpq and 5
acres for ?leh~.j~,~ (car(o(de~, in light of probable severe,
unpredictable local drought would seem to be at relatively high
risk of extinction over the long-term. Areas of this size
proximate to others (particularly with corriOors available) that
offer varying exposures and topographic relief offer the ~reatest
likelihoo~ for long-term butterfly population survival, and for
recolonization should local extinction occur. As TRA state, the
larger the total utilizable habitat protected, the more hope for
avoiding extinction.
One thing made Clear by comparing 1932 and 1982 SBM' maps is
that populations of both butterflies are threatened by invasions
of exotic plants, especially Gorse. D. Murphy from our lab
indicates that he collected substantial numbers of Mission Blue
on the "saddle" in the mid-1960's. This area is now lacking the
blue and is choked with Gorse. There is an immediate need for
human intervention, which appears to be unlikely given the
estimated expense for eradication of exotics and renovation of
habitat. It seems that the trade off of a small fraction of now
suitable habitat for the permanent protection of the remainder,
and the HCP's reclamation of now unsuitable habitat is the best
plan among realistic options. It is hoped that HCP is placed in
hands as capable as those given the biological study.
Along these lines, I have some reservations about the
practical value of estimating the change in extinction
probability given different HCP options. Although the
computations and the species-area models upon which they are
based' are fundamentally sound, these estimates are difficult to
interpret in the absence of any. knowledge of the absolute
extinction probability. For example, a 20% increase in
extinction .probability where the current absolute probability is,
say, 5% in 100 years has quite different implications from a
scenario in which the current absolute probability is 50% in 100
years. '
Regarding the statement that "[these] populations appear
larger than. those of many endangered species (all taxa)", I
should point out the following. Even if these butterfly
populations were smalier than those of most compar'able endangered
taxa, they would still be larger than those of many "healthy",
non-endangered vertebrate populations. The point is that insect
population sizes even in the tens of thousands do not guarantee
the persistance of the populations. Seemingly short-term or
minor changes in weather, habitat disturbance or other factors.
can bring on dramatic population crashes in many insebts. For
instance, between 1981 and 1982 a population of the Bay
Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphvdry~ Dd~tha ba¥-ns~$)~at E4gewood
(San Mateo County) declined from over 100,000 to less than about
5',000 individuals for no clear reason. "
There is really little more that can be said except to
repeat that overall I am very impressed with this report and give
it my approval. Please let me know if further assistance is
needed in this matter.
hr e 1 y,~
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
DAVIS * lltVll~£ * LOS ANCEL. E$ · ]MVERSIDE · SA.~ DIF--~O · SA.~' FllA~CI$CO
D£PARTM£NT OF ZOOLOGY
~ :~ ":~ SA~'TA BAKBAKA - SA.~'"I'A CRUZ
STOR ER. HALL
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95516
July 29, 1982
Mr. Paul M. Koenig
Director of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Services
County of. San Marco
County Government Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear Mr. Koenig:
I have reviewed the Endangered Species Survey for San Bruno Mountain,
prepared-for San Marco County by Thomas Reid Associates and dated
May 1982, as requested in your letter of July 7, I have paid parti-
cular attention to the issues you raised in that letter. My review
and conclusions follow.
..
The TRA Survey represents a very thorough, intensive treatment of two
localized butterfly populations. The preliminary, 1980 work is less
useful than 'that done in 1981 but the availability of some comparative
data for two years is useful. As noted below, stochastic variation in
environmental parameters severely limits the degree to which any study
this brief .can. be extrapolated to a management plan, and this dictates
a very caut~ious and conservative approach. Ail studies of this sort are
only as. reliable as the people who collected 'the data. Confidence in the
data and inferences therefrom must, then, be pegged to confidence that
the pre-Survey training program met its objectives. One may infer from
the 'recapture rates, which were comparable to other studies of butterflies
with similar characteristics, that this program was reasonably successful.
The Su~vey's methods appear to offer a reasonable basis for inferring the
spatial distribution and overall pattern of mobility of the two butterflies
in 1981. These are broadly in agreement with the views of experi~nced Lepi-
dopterists (familiar with the biology of Blues and Fritillaries, as well
as the specific species or sites) and offer few surprises. As always, it
is not possible to document the frequency of truly long-range dispersal,
but the. geography of the situation makes it unlikely that this i~ a critical
factor for the maintenance or survival of the populations. The data On dis-
persal among concentrations on the Mountain appear adequate to infer that
local subpopulat$ons are not isolated from one another long enou.gh to diverge
markedly due either to selection or genetic drift. This, however, cannot be
determined'~igorously without destructive sampling (for electrophoresis),
which is unsupportable in a study of endangered organisms. The dynamics of
the host lupines virtually dictate a pattern of short-to-medium-range disper-.
sal and colonization by the Mission Blue..
·
In determining the genetic and reproductive viability of the populations,
the effective population size of the population biologist is very important.·
This is not equivalent to the actual number of adults. It is probably not
knowable for either of the species studied, since (a~ actual matings ~re
only infrequently observed, (b) kndwledge of the breeding status of males
cannot be determined by inspection, and (c) knowledge of the breeding status
of females is determinable only by dissection. Moreover, level~ of hetero-
zygosity in the populations are determinable only by destructive sampling
for electrophoresis. Nonetheless, the summed totals of individuals marked
constitute: ': a minimum estimate of poPUlation size which intuitively is very
reassuring "~hat both the Mission Blue and Callippe maintain genetically viable
populations under the conditions presently obtaining on San B~-ano Mountain.
What constitutes a genuine lower bound on viable population size would be
determined by the breeding system, which as noted above is presently unknow-
able, but it is very unlikely to be anywhere near so large as the existing
population sizes.
The ~sefulness of island biogeography theory in the management of individual
endangered populations is questionable. This theory is most likely to be useful
when th~ .issue is the conservation of large community or ecosystem types, rather
than particular species. Detailed studies of the target species, such as this
Survey, are the most likely approach to yield useful results. The extent to
which inferences regarding extinction probabilities can be made from theory
is' discussed later in this report.
·
Low-elevatiom organisms in California have evolved in a climatic 'regime marked
by a long-term trend toward summer aridity (Mediterraneanization), with a great
deal of short-term stochasticity in both the quantity and the timing of precipita-
tion. The. long-term trend has had the well-known result of confining various
organisms, such as the Monterey Pine, in coastal fog-belt enclaves where they
are partially sheltered from summer heat and aridity but at the same time are
vulnerable to short-term fluctuations in weather. The long-term survival of the
Mission Blue and Callippe must be viewed in this context. Since 1970 California
has exper, ienced its most variable and extreme weather in over a century, and this
cannot help but interact with man-induced modifications of the vegetation and
landscape in determining the resilience of particular populations. Thus, conclu-
sions from one or two years' data must be taken with a grain of salt. 1982 data
would be especially desirable, since the winter of 1981-82 was one of the wettest
of record in the Bay Area and has been correlated with a general depression of
butterfly populations at least in the Inner Coast Range, Central Valley, and
Sierra Nevada. Obviously, San Mateo County cannot wait a decade to observe the
resilience of these univoltine populations before determining its policy on the
uses .t~~ be made of San Bruno Mountain. Thus, it must assume that in a highly
variable climatic regime, requirements for survival will differ among years and
a wide range of ecological options must be preserved for the butterflies.
·
The habitat on SBM is clearly disturbed. Disturbance ~er se is not inimical. It
may be beneficial to the Mission Blue if it promotes lupine proliferation. The
selective reintroductio~ of grazing, provided that controls are adequate to
Prevent extensive trampling of lupines or soil degradation, might also be bene-
ficial. One form of "disturbance" that seems clearly beneficial is the removal
of gorse and E~calyptus. The germination study by TRA was crude and had several
variables inextricably confounded. Deliberate enhancement of populations of larval
host plants or adult nectar sources will require much better information. Lupine
seed commonly requires scarification or other special treatment to enhance germin-
ation. The timing of sowing vis-a-vis rainfall and soil temperature will also be
important.
I agree fully with the notion that large blocks of contiguous open space, r~Presen
ting a wide diversity of habitats, be preserved. I feel the recommendations
of the HCP constitute a ~minimum' approach in this direction. Because df the
high stochastic variance in climate, the unstable competitive balance among
species, in the weedy annual grassland (the ground rules vary from year to
year, depending on amount and timing of rainfall), the uncertain successional
status of the butterfly habitats on the Mountain, and the unpredictability
of future weather, it is essential that moist and dry sites, flat and steep
ones, etc. continue to remain available even l~f th~ did not appear critical
in the'Survey _year. This year's inundated site will be -- for. the same topo-
graphic reasons -- a mesic refuge from drought in some future year, and so on.
Determining minimum areas capable of supporting populations is very difficult.
On p. III-21 of the July 1982 Adoption and Implementation paper it is .s, uggested
that "Mission Blues may meet their immediate habitat requirements on a scale
of 1 or 2 acres; Callippe Silverspot probably require $ to 10 acres." The
dependence of the Mission Blue on colonization of shifting patches of lupine
makes determination of a minimum area peculiar, since the minimal area necessary ·
for a few years is much less than that required in the ionger haul. We simply
do not understand the pattern of spatial distribution of the Johnny Jump-Up or
of egg placement by Callippe. Thus I regard the~'e estimates as unduly small and
recommend that the County take a very conservative position, i.e. preserving
butterfly open space to the maximum extent possible and taking special care
to insure adequate corridors for dispersal among non-contiguous breeding sites.
The hypothetical extinction probabilities (fig. VI-2, pp. VI-8/10) are, of
course; 'not_ uniquely derived for the species in question. We must use the
specific natural-history data to conclude whether their extinction probabilities
are higher or lower than average. The conclusions on pp. VI-33/34 ar~'correct.
"Climax" is not really applicable to SBM, and "equilibrium" is also probably
not definable in a rigorous way for these systems. I concur overall with the
conclusions on ~p. VI-9/15 of the Survey, and wish to emphasize that although
there is no' mitigation measure which can guarantee the survival of either butterfl)
for a given period of years j: neither would a strict "hands off" policy, and a
management plan which attempts to compensate for auy loss of grassland habitat
by reconversion of unsuitable (gorse) habitat to grassland' is eminently reasonable.
The implementation of the HCP must entail ongoing monitoring of the populations
by knowledgeable personnel. There must be continuity in methodology and record-
keeping during this phase, with adequate subsequent followup. Within the limits
placed by parcel boundaries and ownership, the HCP must be flexible enough to
'respond to observed changes brought about by weather or other factors.
Permit-me to comment on the so-called "subspecies question." There is no generally
accepted biological criterion for the recognition of subspecies. Taxonomic
practice varies among workers on different groups, and even within the set of
taxonomist~ working on a given group there may be quite a bit of disagreement on
the matter. This is due in part to different "weighting" of characters by differ-
ent taxonomists; the geographic distribution of character states or frequencies
may be quite discordant for different character Systems, leadiUg to correspondtngl
different perceptions of subspecies. In the "modern evoluti0mary synthesis'.', of the
1940s through the 1960s, many biologists perceived sub.species as incipient species
a notion reflected in the discussion in the Survey. Actually, surprisingly .little
is known of actual speciation processes, and there is no reliable way to tell an
incipient species from a subspecies which is an evolutionarily trivial dead end.
Most subspecies are probably of the latter type. This very uncertainty can be used
either as an argument for or against the conservation, of subspecies:
The phenotypi.c peculiarities which led to the recognition of missionensis and
callippe as subspecies may or may not be reproducible 'by rearing phenotypicaliy
different stocks under SBM conditions. I do not expect them to be precisely
reproducible, but at any rate if they were. this would still say nothing useful
about the degree .of genetic differentiation of the populations. It is not
uncommon for the phenotype to be differentially constrained, o.r "canalized,"
in different conspecific populations; populations inhabiting special climates
or habitats may have much less plastic phenotypes than those occurring elsewhere
(due to the processes known as "Baldwin Effect" Or "genetic assimilation" --
references on request). Some information on genetic relationships among popula-
tions can be ohtained from electrophoresis, which is as noted before a destruct£ve
process not ethically applicable to endangered populations. In a nutshell, no
biologist can tell you 'on 'strictly biological j~rounds whether the Mission Blue
or Callippe is "worth saving."
To sum up:
(i) Within the limitations of technique, manpower, and resources, the TRA
Study's conclusions regarding the dispersion and dispersal of the lttssion Blue
and Callippe in the study year(s) appear sound. However, extrapolation to other
years must be done very cautiously. ·
(ii) There are no conceivable measures, including "no action," which will insure
the continued survival of the target populations. However, i~ an HCP is to be
adopted, its chances for success will be-maximized if it:
- maximizes the area and diversity of butterfly habitats and
potential butterfly habitats.
- provides corridors among noncontiguous potent&al breeding
habitats or between breeding, feeding, and mating sites.
- provides for conversion of gorse and possibly other non-grassland
habitats to grassland to compensate for losses due to development
or successional invasion.
- provides for renewal or enhancement of lupine populations by
appropriate deliberate disturbance or creation of micro-sites
suitable for lupine colonization.
- is implemented with very careful attention to the timing of
all habitat alterations so as to minimize adverse impacts (divert
reproduction out of areas slated for development into newly avail-
able ones; monitor unique characteristics of the given year and
adjust plan implementation accordingly).
Or .in terms of your specific inquiries:
(i) "The bulk of the...populations is found..." Agree, at least for the
survey year(s).
(ii) "There is enough mobility of reproductives..." Agree, noting that
this could be changed if the habitats were isolated by impenetrable barriers
as discussed in the Survey.
. .
(iii) "The absolute size of the populations..." Agree, though this is largely
intuitive due to the formal reservations stated above in this report.
(iv) "The present habitat is disturbed..,u Agree, if "quality~' is defined from
the butterflies' standpoint.
(v) "Species diversity studies of islands..." Agree, and concur with the sUr'vey
that this approach is of very liras ted value in predicting the fates of jgiven.specie
lIT
-5-
in such systems.
(vi) "The distribution of...larval food plant..." Agree. The estimates of
5 acres (Mission Blue) and 20 acres (Callippe) are much sounder than 1-2
and 5-10 acres, and at that are still shakily small given the clear need
of the Blue and possible need of Callippe to move about and colonize among
sites among years.
(vi) "To compensate for our incomplete knowledge..." Very strongly agree.
I hope these remarks are useful to the County in proceeding with its. decision-
making on San Bruno Mountain and that they Justify the generous homora.r, ium,
whose receipt is gratefully acknowledged. If there are further questions,
please feel free to contact me at (916) 762-2176 (9-10 AM M-F) or 752-1272
(messages, 8-12 and 1-5 M-F). -
Sinc ere ly,
Professor of Zoology and Lecturer in Entomology
Zoologist and Entomologist in the Agricultural
Experiment Station
P.S. I have received, a reque, st from the Xerces Society., an organization
dedicated to the conservation of endangered invertebrates and their
habitats, for a copy of this letter. I have informed them that they should
contact you, as the Contractor, to request access thereto. I have not
provided them with any summary of the contents.
EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL STUDY, 1980-81
ENDANGERED SPECIES SURVEY, 8AN BRUNO MTN., SAN MATEO CO., CA
S ,cific comments:
1) Demographic findings and implications for genetics of the endangered
populations
·
The study examines population sizes of the Mission Blue, P._ i__
mi ssi onensi s_, and the Callippe Fritillary or Callippe Silverspot~ S. call_ip~e
callippe, in their refugium at San Bruno Mountain. Dispersal patterns, adult
and larval resource distributions, and other crucial aspects of the Population
biology of these endangered insects are also examined. State-of-the-art
techniques have been employed to calculate or estimate the population
parameters mentioned from an extremely extensive mark-release-recapture data
base, and to evaluate the hazards to the-insect populations of various human
activities in the context of the insect data. A remarkable amount of
related., ancillary biological data has been taken and is presented to support
and clarify the basic results of the study.
It is clear that in the years studied, both endangered species displayed
healthy population~ numbers. Even allowing for the inevitable variance among
individuals in actual reproductive success, as seen in other Lepidopteran
populations, the numbers of individuals present (e.g. Table VI-5)must reduce
at ;~orst to effective breedinq ~o_pulation sizes (Crow and Kimura 1970, Kimura
and Ohta 1971, Roughgarden 197~) well in excess of 5~000. This means that both
~.~ well up on the asymptotic curve of genetic variabiity maintained as a
f ~ction of population size (Wright 1~51). That is~ of all the genetic
s 'iation that hypothetical infinite-sized populations of these species might
contain, the present, populations are large enough to contain well above 90%.
It is clear from the results presented that all the San Bruno Mtn.
subpopulations or "colonies" of each of these insects are interconnected by
sufficient yearly migration that they are each, effectively, one population
over the whole mountain. Standard models for "stepping-stone" animal
population structures indicate that if two subpopul ations exchanger on
average, one reproductively effective migrant per generation, they effectively
form part of the same overall population. This does not mean that local
differentiation may not occur; it does mean that irreparable loss of crucial
genetic information., due to gametic sampling error or "genetic drift" in small
populations, becomes much less likely.
This issue of the maintenance of genetic variability in conserved animal
or plant populations is only now receiving the full attention that it de-
serves. It is a clear resUlt of contemporary population genetics that most
organisms are highly variable in the wild., with some of the variation being~
favorable to the creatures in question, and Other variation being deleterious.,
particularly in double dose. The larger the population that is maintained,
the less likely it is that t~o similarly deleterious "recessive" variants will
come together by the mating of two heterozygous "carriers". and thus produce a
i---~rly viable or lethal offspring. In other words, the larger are local popu-
tions, the less they are likely to inbreed themselves to extinction. The
~dings on migration between sub-populations, conservatively drawn as they
are, fully ~ustify the contention that portions of each local "colony" on the
mountain should be preserved: together with migration "corridors". This will
unquestionably preserve the greatest geneti~c diversity in each of t~e popula-
t_i-ons in question, and thus will be a superior strategy for the ultimate
p .servation of the insects.
2> Competence of approach and methodology
'.The study is noteworthy, first., for its extensiveness and for the
extraordinary measures taken to ensure the accuracy of data taken by
individual personnel. I know of no other study of insect demography which has
employed so many workers per area of ground or unit animal population size., or
which has been so carefully monitored as to "quality control". Indeed.` the
work puts to shame in these regards major agriculturally-motivated insect
surveys with which I am familiar.
The extraction of relevant information from the raw data has been
exemplary. In addition to proper computerized use of the standard 8.M. Jolly
stochastic analysis techniques for population size,, the study team has devised
additional processing techniques for extracting dispersal and other
parameters. These techniques are sound, original., and powerful.
Further~ the application of island biogeography theory CMacArthur and
Wi lson 1967, Soul~ and Wi lcox 1980) to the estimation of extinction
probabi 1 ities under various management scenarios is both competent and
imaginative. This is an extremely revealing and powerful tool for assistance
in evaluation of management options.
~ In short., the competence of the study is such that not only will the
~ ~erests of San Mateo County be well served by the accuracy and pertinence of
~ _= results., but the study will clearly serve as a model for the application
of fundamental 'biological approaches to the study of other~ similar
endangered-species management problems in future.
5) Prognosis for the endangered speci es under the no-devel opment
al ternative
The Study makes clear the fact that habitat quality on San Bruno Mountain
is presently deteriorating, due to the unregulated impact of random human
activities. A no-development alternative would thus be without ultimate value
for the preservation of these species unless effective mitigation measures
~ere implemente~ to halt or reverse the habitat decay. No feasible source of
such measures is in prospect for the no-development alternative.
Portions of this habitat deterioration are clearly the result of human
intervention. It might be argued, however, that part of the process is due to
natural ecological succession, and therefore measures to oppose this natural
reduction of the grassland habitat of these endangered populations are of
questionable "realism". This argument ignores the fact that the gradual
successional reduction Of particular patches of open grassland in any one spot
would, under primitive conditions, have been balanced by the opening up of new
--assland habitat patches elsewhere. Given the heavy human occupation of the
ty and County of San Francisco, and most of the rest of the San Francisco
'
~ninsul a~ this natural generation of alternative habitat is no longer
available for the insects" "esCape" over time. Thus~ in order to preserve
whatever vestiges of naturalness may be preserved, the successional damage to
the grassland habitat, ~s well as previous or future direct human damag
sa~=uld be countered by all feasible means.
4) "Margin" of protection against extinction
Some discussion is provided of lower population-size thresholds for a
given degree of extinction risk. This discussion is properly cautious. In
principle.` any organism species, of whatever population size or geographic
extent, could go extinct over a short period of time under sufficiently cata-
clysmic circumstances. The general point is of course that the larger the
population, the more severe, infrequent., and generally less likely a natural
disaster which could wipe it out would have to be.
This, however, .entails a crucial caution. The estimates of a given risk
of e~:tinction for X% reduction in habitat size under development~ carefully
documented for the present circumstances, @ertain gnl_z to the present circum-
stances. An implicit assumption, essential to the (properly qualified)
cost-benefit and risk evaluations in this study, is that once the H_C_P_ is
implemented and the present development, c_om~!e_ted~ no further incursion into
_th_e Sa_n Bruno Mountain habitat will occur. Further reductions in suitable
habitat would entail a much greater corresponding risk to the species invol-
ved. We are NOT dealing with an analogy to a self-sealing automobile tire,
which is claimed to be as "good as new" once a given puncture has sealed.
5) Minimum areas of reserved habitats
The minimum habitat area needed to support an insect population is that
~ ~.ch will not only contain sufficient resources for maintenance.of a viable
~. _pulation~ but which will accommodate the evolved behavior patterns of the
species in question.~ An insect such as the Mission Blue., whose local movement
paSte?ns cause it~, usually to remain within small patches of habitat, can
effectively maintain a population in an area as small as five acres, though
larger areas will alwa~_s be more secure against extreme local density ~luctua-
tions which Could lead to extinction. By contrast, the longer inherent move-
ment radius of the Callippe Fritillary makes it unlikely to colonize success- ·
fully any habitat lacking hilltops., or lacking a sufficient expanse to enclose
the normal local movements of individuals. Thus, while some conservation of
the Mission-Blue could undoubtedly be achieved in small, patchy parcels close
enough together to allow occasional migration among them, the recommendations
of the presen~ study that larger areas be preserved is certainly more wi se.
Parcels smallest than many tens of acres simply would not do at all for the
Callippe Fritillary. These sorts of behavioral differences in habitat utiliza-
tion are well' known among other Lepidoptera, and the Study is certainly cor-
rect i-n emphasizing them in the present case.
6) Endangered butterfly species as indicators
In several places.` the Study mentions the fact that other, less-well-
studied groups of organisms on San Bruno Mountain may include species which
ar.e in fact endangered, though not as yet recognized as~ such. This is
tremely likely. Butterflies turn out to be very good "indicators" of habitat
ality or unique habitat conditions (Klots 1951), and as such may well
ccessfully "mark" complex habitat combinations in which other unusual animal
or plant populations may have evolved. San Bruno Mountain is clearly
documented by the Study to harbor many unusual-plant populations, and more may
, I~ ' 111[
ye~ be found. The Study"s recommendations f'or preservation of large tracts on
the Mountain., for' effective policing of these tracts' preservation, and for
h ,itat preservation/damage ;nitigation ~measures, are properly conservative
t ~ard this possibility.
7) General biological importance of the subject populations
In the narrow sense., compliance with the Endangered Species Act provides
sufficient legal justification for effective conservation of the Mission Blue
and the Callippe Fritillary. But there is a.broader sense in which these
populations are important to biology, and perhaps in the long run to the
direct benefit of the people of San Mateo County. Briefly, the Study refers to
the fact that several other Lepidoptera are known to have been endemic to
parts of what is now San Francisco, found nowhere else, and to have been
driven to extinction by the spread of urbanization. A crucial, currently hotly.
considered and debated, group of questions in the theory of local adaptation
and species formation revolve around the causes and rates of species
formation in response to environmental structure. Clearly, the northern San
Francisco Peninsula was an unusual local region of rapid species formation
prior to the coming of Caucasian man. The San Bruno Mountain flora and fauna
are the last remaining sizeable vestige of the results of these natural
processes, whatever they are/were. Thus they are a unique resource for
attempting to analyze why this particular small region should have been
characterized by so much endemic species formation. The ability to continue
such study, and perhaps ultimately to solve this problem~ may yet prove of
ma]or importance to general development of this part of biology, and through
s to a better fit and balance between human-derived and natural processes
ii this region., perhaps in the world at large.
8) Intrinsic limitations on such work, and proper perspective on them
It may be argued that a longer period of study should be undertaken
before making any management recommendations at all; it may be argued that no
finite study can assess all imaginable circumstances., and that no development
of any kind should be agreed to for San Bruno Mountain. Both these arguments
really involve a sort of uncertainty principle --- we can't anticipate
everything., therefore nothing should be disturbed. .Such a principle, in
somewhat more pragmatic form., animates the Endangered Species Act itself ---
we are not wise .~enough to know whether a given species has something to reveal
to further study~., whether a given species may lead us to greater understanding
or our own betterment., and therefore we should not cause the extinction of any
species if at all possible.
As to the first point~ the experience of several different research
groups studying a diversity of Lepidopteran populations is that a few years'
study is sufficient to reveal the main_r_ features of those populations'
structure. For example., it is not necessary to have tracked the population
through an episode of low density.in order to judge what the hazards to that
population may be from such an episode.
As to the second point, human knowledge cannot aspire to absolute
'tainty. It does seem clear that the present San Bruno Mountain habitat is
deteriorating: the Study makes a persuasive case that controlled development,
resulting in a finite reduction in immediate total habitat area, may yet
I. PERMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FEDEFLAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PERMIT
·
· .
. . .
~r
.// (2 76)
2. AUIHORII~.S?ATOIFS
16 USC 153g(a)
·
REG4JLAT]ONS ,'.'t~",. :.
County of 'San MateD,*
City of Brisbane,
City of Daly'City,
City of South San Francisco, Californ. ia
*See Reverse
NAME AND TITLE OF PRINCIPAL OFFICER ,/~ ~' ,S ~ b~;smess~
See Reverse
9. TYPE OF PERMIT,
-*..UM,E. PRT 2-9 818
· .
"u~EW^'LEvts s. ~Y YEsc°PH
13 .o Cl .o
6. EFFECTIVE 7. EXPIRES
),tAR - 4 198 03/31/2013
·
· ·
ENDANGERED SPECIES
10.LOCATION WHERE AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY MAY BE CONDUCTED
'' San Brt~no Mountain~ San'~a~6o~-C(;u?i'ty;..cai!,fornia ·
, . . ,.;.-,..::. . .... ,~'~ , , ~'~;.~' ~..
; , .
I1. C~DITIONS AND AUTHORI~TIONS: p , J ' '?:, ~ ~ ; · , i. .~v,: [ ,~ ~t · - . ,'.~ e . :'-.
hEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS PER~IT,* XLL ACTIVITI~Am~ORIZm ~REIN MUST mE ~eRt~ OUT ~ ACC~O WnH 6ND FOR THE P~POSES DESCRIBED ~:THE
.- APPUCAT~ON SUB~I~ED. CON)~UED VAUDI~, 0R RENEWAL. bF THIS ~1: ~S SU~ECT TO COMPLETE AND II~ELY COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPU~BLE
CONDITIONS. INCLUDING THE FIL~G OF ~ RE~iRED I~F~R~AT~oN A~DrREPORTS.* * ' ' '' '~ '
B. THE VALIDITY OF THIS PER~IT IS ALSO CONDITIONED UPON STRICT O~5ERVANCE OF ALL APPLIQUE F~E~N STATE,' t~L ~ OTHER FEDERAL ~W.
C. VALID FOR USE BY PERM!TTEE NAM..~D ABOVE. _... -' .. ""' . i ~ ' [ , ', ·.
' ' .,.' T r :... ..' ',.. ~ '' " .~ ,~ ' ,' - i'
.
0:' Authorized to incidental1~"i;ake'missiOn :b%ue'butterflies (ICaricia :icarioides
missionensis), San Bruno eTff~:"butterflie's (Ca'liophrys'mOssii bayensis) and San
Francisco garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataeniaTPP-~-VIDED'
l. No San Bruno elfin butterflies or San Francisco garter snakes are taken in the
following Administrative Parcels without an amendment to this permit: Carter-Hartin
Extension (alternate B)(1-02), Parcel X(1-04), State Park (1-09}, Transmission Line
(1-11), Quarry (2-01), Owl and Buckeye Canyons (2-02), County Park (2-05), Transmissior
Line (2-07) Antenna Sites (3-01), County' Park (3-02), Trarlsmi ssi on Line (3-04), State
Park (4-04), and Guadalupe Canyon Parkway (4-05).
2. All aspects of the "Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area
Habitat Conservation Plan" must be complied with and completely implemented.
(.ADDITIONALCONDITIONS AND AUTHORIZATIONS ON REVERSE ALSO APPLY
. ~-~-i~ ~, ~,N ~-,-E~0-0~.~;&;, ~s ............................
A complete report of activities conducted under authority of this
permit for Conserved Habitat (including Reclaimed Habitat) must be submitted to the
Director, USFWS, Federal Wildlife Permit Office, P.O.Box 3654, Arlington, VA 22203, by
January 31 following each year during which this penn_it is in .ef. fe_c%.^~|
s~:~ ].T~E Director, U S Fish and E..
/~C-D./~'q-~-" .'~.~""-"'? ! . . .
~ ,,.,._RT A...-~.:l~,, ~ Wildlife Service_
Block 1. a. Board of Supervisors
County of' San Mateo
County Government Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
b. City Manager City of Brisbane
44 Visitacion Avenue
Brisbane, CA 94005
c. City Manager
City of Daly City
90th and Sullivan Streets
Daly City, CA 94105
d. City. Manager
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
· South San Francisco, CA 94080
Block 8. a. Paul Koenig, Director of Environmental Manag~ement
b. Richard B. Kerwin, City Manager ,.
c. David Rowe, City Manager
d. Walter Birkelo, City Manager ~
Block 11. D. 3. This permit is being issued based on the Service's explicit
understanding, and on the condition, that Section VIII(B)(3)(b)(i) of the Agreement--
with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan is interpreted so
that this permit can be revoked or terminated if (in addition to the other requirements
of that paragraph), the Service determines that the cumulative loss of Conserved
Habitat in a given Administrative Parcel from all violations is greater than 5% of the
total Conserved Habitat shown for that Administrative Parcel in Chapter VII of the San
Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan.
E. Acceptance of this permit serves as evidence that the permittee understands and
agrees to abide by the "Special Conditions for Marine Man, hals and Native Endangered and
Threatened Species" copy attached, to the extent that such Special Conditions are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno .
Mountain Area-Habitat Conservation Plan and this permit.
cc' SAC-1
RD-1
F&G-CA
WPO:LRobinson'ol J 03/04/83
wPO ( 1 )
OES
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Implemented June 1982
-i
Special Conditions for Marine Mammals and Native Endangered and Threatened
Species. Permits
1. Permittee must comply with the attached General Pemit Conditions specified
by the Federal Wildlife Permit Office.
2. Any dead or injured specimens of the authorized wildlife found may be
salvaged or cared for.
3. Unless otherwise authorized on the face of the permit, the wildlife must be
immediately released at or near the capture site after permitted activity.
4. Unexpected death or escape of the authorized wildlife shall be reported to
the Federal Wildlife Permit Office (703/235-1903) before the end of the
next business day.
5. BIRD banding, marking, radio tagging, etc. must be conducted in accordance
with a Federal Bird Marking and Salvage permit.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY UNTIL AUTHORIZED UISPOSAL OF THE WILDLIFE,
REGARDLESS OF THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE PERMIT'
6. The authorized wildlife may NOT be sold, donal~ed or transferred unless the
.... receiver has first been issued authorization by the Director.
:
7. Any dead authorized wildlife shall be preserved and held for scientific
purposes whenever practical.
8. Any live SEA TURTLES held must be maintained in acCordance with the "Care
and Maintenance Standards for Sea Turtles Held in Captivity" specified by
the Federal Wildlife Permit Office.
9. MARINE MAMI.IALS must be cared for and maintained in 'accordance with the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's regulations on "Marine
Mammals; Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation".
United States Department of the Interior
ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
·
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D~C. 20240
Implemented May 1982
GENERAL PERNIT CONDITIONS
1. All sections of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 13 provided on the
reverse of this page are conditions of the permit'.l,
2. All applicable foreign~ state, local or other federal laws, including those
requiring permits, must be observed.
3. Living specimens must be handled and shipped so as to minimize risk of
injury, dama§e to health or cruel treatment.
4. Container in which authorized wildlife is shipped must be plainly marked
· with name and address of shipper and consignee and an accurate description
of the contents including common and scientific name and number of each
within, OR With a symbol authorized by a Symbol Markin~ permit.
5. Permittee must carry a copy of permit while conducting authorized activities.'
6. Permit number must be legibly printed on all documents and advertisements
involving activities conducted under permit.
For permits authorizing import, export or reexport'
7. This permit and a completed copy of the Wildlife Declaration (Form 3-177)
must be presented to a USFWS officer at the port upon import, export or
reexport of wildlife shipments.
..... 8. Import, export or reexport of pre-Act wildlife under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act must be accompanied by documentation required by 50 CFR 17.4.
9. Import of species listed in Appendix I, II or III of CITES must be
accompanied by proper foreign documentation from the country of export.
10. Import, export or reexport of plants must be made through a U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) port (list attached if applicable). Permittee shall
allow an authorized USDA agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour
to inspect any speci~i~ens held, or to inspect any records.
11. Import, export or reexport of wil'dlife must be made through one of the
following designated ports or-as authorized by an Exception to Designated
Port permit: New York, RY; Miami, FL; New Orleans, LA; Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX;
Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA; Honolulu, HI; Seattle, WA; and Chicago,IL.
Exception to Designated Port permittees:
a. Permittee is liable for all costs incurred by USFWS in examining
shipments including per diem, salary and travel cost. Payment shall be by
certified check or money order, payable to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
prior to delivery of shipment to the consignee.
b. The nearest USFWS Law Enforcement Office (list attached} must be notified
at least 72 hours prior to import, export or reexport.
§ 13.23 Amendment of applications or per- ·
Where circumstances have changed
--) that an applicant or permittee de-
ires to have any term or condition of '
is application or permit modified, he
mst submit in writing full justifies-4
tiOn and supporting information in.
conformance with the provisions of ?
this part and the part under which the(
permit has been issued or requested.~
Such applications for modification are!~
Excerpts from CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS (50 CFR 13)
· § 13.24 Renewal of permit.
Where the permit is renewable and a
permittee intends to continue the ac.
tivity described in the permit durin~.~
any portion of the year ensuing its exC!,
piration, he shall, unless otherwise no-~
tiffed in writing by the Director, file
request for permit renewal, togethe't~
with a certified statement that the in-
formation in his original application is
still currently correct, or a statement,
of all changes in the original applica,
fica. accompanied by any required fee
at least 30 days prior to the expiration
of his permit. Any person holding a
valid renewable permit, who has com-
plied with the foregoing provision
this section, may continue such activi-~
ties as were authorized by his expired
permit until his renewal application is
"--,~¢t ed upon.
13.25 Permits not transferable; agents.
ia) Permits issued under this part
_re not transferable or assignable,
Some permits authorize certain activi-
ties in connection with a business or
commercial enterprise and in the
event of any lease, sale, or transfer of
such business entity, the successor
must obtain a permit prior to coating'-
ins the permitted activity. However,
certain limited rights of succession are
provided in § 13.26.
lb) Except a~ otherwise stated
the face of a permit, any person who is
under the direct control of the permit-
tee. or who is employed by or under
contract to the perm//tee for the pur-
poses authorized by the permit.
carry out the activity authorized .12).
the permit.
§ 13.27 Change of mailing address. :
During the term of his permit, a per~
mittee may change his mailing address
without procuring a new permit. How-
ever, in every case notification of the
new mailing address must be for,'ard-
ed to the issuing official within 30
days after such change. This section
does not authorize the change of loca-
tion of the permitted activity for
Which an amendment must be ob-
---'ained in accordance with ~ 13.23.
13.2~ Change in name,
A permittee contlnumg to conduct a
permitted activity I~ not requtrrd to
obtain a new p~.rmi~ b:,' ro~or, cf
mere change in tr',~' name ur:der
which a busine.'-,:, iz (o:~ducted or
change of name by r*:~''t'n of marr~ag~
or legal decree: pro, id,'d That
permittee mu.si furr,~h I~L~ permit to
the issuing official for endorsement
within 30 days from the date the per-
mittee begins conducting the permit-
ted activity under the new name.
subject to the same issuance criteria
are original applications, as provided § 13.29 Official endorsement of changes
in § 13.21. '/~. required.
Any change in a permit must be
mgde by endorsement of the Director
or issuing officer. Any modification or
~change in an issued permit, other than
those specifically provided for in this
sUbpart, may be granted or denied in
the discretion of the Director.
§ 13.30 Certain continuancy of aclivity.
A permittee who furnishes his
permit to the issuing of ifc(al for en-
dorsement or correction in compliance
with the provisions of this subpart
may continue his operations pending
its return.
§ 13.31 Discontinuance of activity.
When any permittee discontinues
his activity, he shall, within 30 days
thereof, mail his permit and a request
for cancellation to the issuing officer.
and said permit shall be deemed void
upon receipt. No refund of any part of
an amount paid as a permit fee shall
be made where the operations of the
permittee are. for any rea-~on, discon.
tinued during the tenure of an issued
permit.·
.
13.:11 Recall and amendment of i~..rmit
during itq term.
Except for marine mammal permits
(See Part 18), all permits are issued:
subject to the condition that the Serv-
ice reserves the right to recall and
amend the provisions of a permit /'or
just cause at any time during its term.
Such amendments take effect on the
date of notification, unless otherwise
specified.
§ 13.42 Permits are specific.
The authorizations on the face of a
permit which set forth specific times.
da~es, places, methods of taking, num-
bers and kinds of wildlife or plants, lo-
cation of activity, authorize certain
circumscribed tran.~act~ona, or other.
wise permit a spex-~hcally Bruited
matter, are to be slrwtly construed
·.nd shall not be Interpreted to permit
similar or related matters ouL~de the
scope of since cor~tnwt.mn.
§ 13.13 llterat,on of I~rmit~
~-~:~ u~ :.~ ~r:x official purpose
§ 13.44 Display of permit.
Any permit issued under this part
shall be displayed for inspection upon
request to the Director or his agent, or
to any other person relying upon its
existence.
§ 13.45 Filing of reports.
Permittees may be required to file
reports of the activities conducted
under the permit. Any such reports
shall be filed not later than March 31
for the preceding calendar year ending
DeCember 31, or any Portion thereof,
during which a permit was in force,
unless the regulations of this Sub-
chapter B or the provisions of the
permit set forth other reporting re-
quirements.
§ 13.46 Maintenance of eec ~rds.
From the date of issuance of the
permit, the permittee shall maintain
complete and accurate records of any
taking, possession, transportation.
sale. purchase, barter, exportation, or
importation of plants obtained from
the wild (excluding seeds) or wildlife
pursuant to such perm:t. Such records
shall be kept current and shall include
.names and addresses of persons wi!h
whom any plant obtained from the
wild (excluding seecL~) or wildlife
been purchased, sold. bartered, or oth.
era'/se transferred, and the date of
such transaction, and such other tn-
formation n~ may I:~ requ:re~ or
proprsate. Such records, unlr~ other.
wise specified, shall be entered in
books, legibly written in the
language, Such recorcL~ shM1 be re-
tained for 5 years from the da~¢ of L~
suance of the permit.
§13.17 Inspection requirement.
An)' person holding a permit under
this Subchapter B shall alloa,' the Di-
rector's agent to enter his premises at
ans' reasonable hour to inspec~ an.'.
wildlife or plant held or to inspect,
audit, or copy any permits, books, or
records required to be kept by regula-
tions of this Subchapter B.
§ 13.5i Penalties for violation of a permit.
notice; demonstration of compliance.
(a) Any violation of the applicable
provisions of this subehapter, or of the
statute under which the permit was
issued, or a condition of t!a. permit.
may subject the permittt-e to lhe fol-
lo~'ing pcnalt les:
11~ The penalty provid,-d :n :!;t'
t2, Temporary susrwn,.,,:: (,f
p,-rm~t for a spcOfa-d ~,-riod. a:~cl
(3, Re~ocatwn of the permit %Vhcn
rr~oked, p<'rmit.~ taus! bt, surrcndercd
to thc D:re~:or on demand.
tb~ Excrpt lB ca.~es of w'illftlllrless or
thc.,., in a, hich the Public" health
· _x:c::, or Interest r/'qtilrcq and prior
t(. any .~usperl.qlon or rex'coat!on of a
;',':m:t the perm~ttee shall be given:
, I Notwr by the Service in writing
Of
Iht,
facts or conduct x~hich may
aarram the SUSDPBsioli or revocation:
and
(2~ Opportunity to demonstrate or
achieve compliance with all permit re-
quirements.