Loading...
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.