Will Wavecrest be disked over the long weekend?

The listed species on the Wavecrest site are protected by federal law. If there is any harm or harassment of any federally-protected species without authorization per section 7 or section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), then the violator is subject to consequences outlined under section 9 of the ESA.

I would strongly suggest that the owners of either of two properties mentioned in the above article think twice before they embark on actions that would violate federal law. People who live near these properties may want to keep their cameras handy this weekend.

Link to ESA http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/esa.html

“I would strongly suggest that the owners of either of two properties mentioned in the above article think twice before they embark on actions that would violate federal law.”

I would strongly suggest that you have absolutely no business telling anyone what they should be doing.

Do you walk down to the beach and tell kids not to light joints too?

Comment 3 by Barry Parr  on  Sep 01  at  9:45pm  •  All my comments • 

I think a more apt analogy would be strongly suggesting that Arthur Andersen not destroy evidence. If someone had given them that advice and they had taken it, that would have saved them a lot of heartache. And money, too.

The irony is obviously lost on Brian Ginna when he advises Mr. Lancing that he should not be dispensing advice to others, although Kevin’s advice is proffered without malice or petulance—he cautions about breaking the law. Too bad Mr. Ginna’s “advice” doesn’t adhere to a similar standard of civility.

Comment 5 by Charlie Gardner  on  Sep 02  at  3:27pm  •  All my comments • 

To my knowledge, there has been no documented find of any “listed” species on the Wavecrest site. The closest documented find of record that I know of is a SF Garter snake in the vicinity of the recently completed Pilarcitos Creek crossing project by Strawflower Plaza nearly a mile away.(Funny, that project received a mitigated negative declaration to proceed inside a riparian corridor with the City as the Lead agency).

The “potential habitat” identified by one or more of several wetland delineations have identified buffer zones to be avoided in any proposed development and should be recognized as an appropriate sensitivity to any species that could potentially survive there. It doesn’t mean they are there, nor have been found to date.

We voted to abandon the idea of a new middle school on this site because of the same rhetoric being raised in the name of environmentalism that is nothing more than an uneccasary reason to build nothing at this location. Most in this community see the ruse for what it is.

Charles Gardener wrote: “…there has been no documented find of any listed species on the Wavecrest site.”

Well, actually there has been, as documented here:

http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/frogs/crlf_survey.pdf

http://coastsider.com/comments/105010C/

One would hope, that as an elected official of the school district, Mr. Gardner would not dismiss as a “ruse” an official determination made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

As far as the Pilarcitos Creek project mentioned above goes, the City of HMB fully complied with USFWS recommendations before doing anything. The USFWS recommendations were imposed as conditions of approval on the Coastal Development Permit that was granted to the City. To its credit, the City followed the letter and spirit of the law in every regard.

Please, please, please. Let’s not get concerned about some silly frog or snake taking a powder. Please, let us worry more about the pristine quality of this community as it was and how it should remain. We do not want ANY building on the coastside of Hwy 1 (that’s Westside for you in Rio Linda) for any reason. Let’s say it like it is and stop all this eloquent blabber about laws and critters that have absolutely no effect on OUR quality of life. Don’t be sidetracked by inane issues.

Comment 8 by Charlie Gardner  on  Sep 02  at  10:47pm  •  All my comments • 

The “ruse” to which I dismiss, either as an elected official, or a simple member of this community is hiding behind the attractive premise of protecting the environment to stop any and all development, whether it is for schools, infrastructure,or the hated building contractor.

Even Mr. Lansing trundles out a form filed with USFWS as an “official detrmination” when all that is is a form entered into a database as a result of some individuals alleged observation. Much was made and said about the timing of that observation, but I won’t belabor the past.

The fact of the matter is contained within Mr. Lansing’s apt observation that there are procedures to allow construction, that being, “complied with USFWS recommendations before doing anything. The USFWS recommendations were imposed as conditions of approval on the Coastal Development Permit that was granted to the City (Developer). In this case, USFWS can provide input through consultation on appropriate buffer zones, and permits can be issued.

Comment 9 by Barry Parr  on  Sep 02  at  11:19pm  •  All my comments • 

To be clear, the “individual’s alleged observation” was a documented sighting and photograph by a biologist. I spoke to him myself shortly after his observation.

We should also keep in mind that USFWS found red-legged frog habitat on the site. It’s the presence of habitat, not frogs, that is the issue as far as they are concerned.

Finally, is it a “ruse” to expect corporations to obey the law?

“UPDATE: The equipment, which was parked on the Wavecrest site earlier Friday was moved sometime Friday afternoon to Main Street, near the Fire Station.”

Actually, it was moved to the ACTIVE FARMLAND between James Ford, Main Street and SR1. That ACTIVE FARMLAND, upon which pumpkins were grown in 2005, has been cleared of some brush over the past month or so.

Were the disks placed strategically (provocatively?) on the Wavecrest property on Friday (48 hours or so ago) to elict this kind of reaction?

Charlie, environmentalists strongly backed Measure S and some of us worked many hours to try to pass it. Your slam about environmentalists opposing schools and other infrastructure improvements is ill informed at best, and mean in addition.

So while we are generalizing, why do you think it is okay to use the guise of “farming” to defy state and federal agencies when the purpose is to evade existing regulations in order to encourage future development?

The real “ruse” is that this is about farming, the paltry and pitiful pile of pumpkins produced south of the Ford agency notwithstanding. That’s not why heavy equipment was used there to gut the abandoned ag pond and dig out the last roots on the mature willows that’ve been growing there more than a dozen years. Who’s kidding who about ruses?

While we’re on the topic of Wavecrest, perhaps CUSD Trustee Gardner could provide the public with a brief update on the status (if any) of CUSD taking steps to extricate the school district from the development deal it had struck with the Wavecrest developer.

Barry,

Shame on you for this “Alarmist” reporting. Parking a vehicle near a site where problems have occurred in the past means absolutely nothing. It is this sort of bologna that erodes public trust in our government, incites and invites people to respond to a false call to action. Further reporting like this erodes the fabric of our society into a fearful group of small town finger-pointing, name-calling bunch of “little” people who would be better off doing something constructive and contributive to society at large, or even their own families.

While the preventative intentions are sincere, in the future, how about calling the sheriff once the disking commenced and they will shut it down until the proper authorities are back in their offices, and then reporting.

I am ashamed for you and by you.

Comment 14 by Barry Parr  on  Sep 04  at  1:16pm  •  All my comments • 

Here’s why I think it’s news:

• The owners of Wavecrest have a history of disking the property without warning, requiring intervention from the city, state and federal authorities.

• Disking (or bulldozing) without warning under the guise of agriculture is a long-standing practice for Coastside developers with problematic property

• The feds have asked Wavecrest’s developers not to cultivate once already and have identified the property as containing threatened species habitat

• The equipment showed up the day before a long weekend

This makes it news.  I reported the facts on the ground (literally) and tried to explain why it was significant.

I did try to reach the property’s owners on Friday afternoon, but they had apparently left early for the long weekend. Also, I don’t believe the sheriff would stop any cultivation without a legal order.

Finally, I don’t see how you can decry name-calling and write something like this:  ”a fearful group of small town finger-pointing, name-calling bunch of “little” people who would be better off doing something constructive and contributive to society at large, or even their own families.”

Barry is correct to point out the track record of the Wavecrest developer in justifying this story. In addition to the previous disking incident in 2004, there was also the notorious installation of an illegal drainage pipe (to drain wetlands) on the property in 1999, as reported in the HMB Review.

http://wavecrest.sanmateo.org/CCC/HMBReview1999.html

I wonder sometimes that those who are always saying the sky is falling there’s a redlegged froggie, snake , wetlands to stop everything really care or are they just playing the critter card & wetland card to stop everything that may help the coast people,s sad infrastructure & their safety. Tired of hearing people playing the critter card or wetlands card to stop everthing. Cant even get a decent water pipeline built & 2 people on the board have to play their critter & wetlands card.

There is also a long proud history on the Coastside of developers doing illegal things starting late Friday afternoon preceeding a 3 day weekend, for the reasons given in the first paragraph of the story.

In the unincorporated parts of the Coastside, developers know that they can get away with anything during off hours because the County has no penalty for violation, and rubber stamps “after the fact” permits with just a little slap on the wrist (increased permit cost). Their motto is literally “forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission.”

As to “calling the sheriff”, yeah, sure. I’ll give two examples of how well that works: The County requires that copies of permits be available at all times on site. When trees are being cut illegally, the sheriff steadfastly refuses to stop the work even if there is no permit available for on-site inspection. When a developer was illegally grading a property next to a property that he had a permit for, the sheriff refused to stop it and refused to let me show them how they were misinterpreting the property description in the permits shown by the developer, who was lying to them about which properties the permits covered. If County Planning staff are unreachable by phone, the sheriff will NOT, as in NEVER, stop the work.

I’d be interesting in hearing what the experience of people in HMB is with their police in similar situations.

Comment 18 by Charlie Gardner  on  Sep 05  at  5:22pm  •  All my comments • 

Hi Ken,

Great alliteration! You left off, “…the paltry and pitiful pile of pumpkins produced..”, are in fact the “prideful point of the population from Pescadero to Point Montara.”

Sure, some “enviro” types voted for Measure S (although not to the point purported in Coastsider in my opinion), and even a few worked many hours for the failed ballot measure. But one is not as you term “misinformed” when the record clearly shows the effort to back the other failed Measure D which would have red-lined the school district to prohibit any new schools west of Hwy 1. That’s the stuff that is pitiful in my opinion (and yes, even mean, as you mention).

Question for either you or Mr. Lansing. If the need were demonstrated, and agreed that a new Elementary school was required, and demographic studies showed a geographic need south of town, would you support a new school in the upland area outside the delineated buffer zones (when made) at the Wavecrest site?

This is a yes, or no question. Any elaboration beyond will be considered further obfuscation of the issue.

Charlie

Comment 19 by Barry Parr  on  Sep 05  at  5:40pm  •  All my comments • 

Charlie: This is a conversation, not a cross-examination.

To answer your question, yes, Charlie. I believe an agreement was in place and it wasn’t any of my group’s fault that the deal ran afoul of the feds. The rest transpired according to the rules of men and, perhaps for those who believe in him, the deity. You don’t have to like it, but you should learn to live with it.

As a law abiding citizen, Charlie, and not to beg my question a second time, why do you think it is okay to use the guise of farming to defy state and federal agencies? (As to my alliterative pumpkin painting, I referred to the triangle south of James Ford where they’ve assaulted the abandoned ag pond for no justifiable economic purpose related to “farming.”)

It appears it is hard for you to admit that we “enviros” as you call us worked hard for not only S but most of the previous school bond initiatives going back long before you moved to the Coastside. I have a secret for you, Charlie: we enviros are largely progressive and 100% behind education, unlike most libertarians, American Independents, Reform Party types and conservatives who want to pay no taxes. Progressives believe that you have to pay for things and that you get what you pay for. Most of the enviros I know think that there is no such thing as enough education, and I myself saw my kids go through public elementary, middle, high school and colleges. Like the stereotype of Asian imigrants wanting their kids to excel in school, we enviros feel and act the same way. And we believe that Earth depends increasingly on smart stewards. So we are the friends of public schools, Charlie, probably more so than many of the people that you count as your own frieds.

Also, while we’re still on the topic of Wavecrest, maybe CUSD Trustee, Charlie Gardner can give us an update on how CUSD means to extricate itself from the debauched “Land Swap” Deal involving Wavecrest & CUSD owned Vacant Land in North El Granada which is a designated “Affordable Housing Site” in the Mid-Coast.

Kevin Lansing wrote:

While we’re on the topic of Wavecrest, perhaps CUSD Trustee Gardner could provide the public with a brief update on the status (if any) of CUSD taking steps to extricate the school district from the development deal it had struck with the Wavecrest developer.

Barb Mauz/nature_watch@hotmail.com

Mr. Gardner, to answer your question: Yes I would support any project that can be shown to comply with the City’s Local Coastal Program and applicable state and federal laws.

They’re disking right now. It is expressly forbidden, and they’re doing it anyway.

“It is expressly forbidden”

Really? How is that so?

Note: That is a rhetorical question. I know that disking is NOT expressly forbidden by any stretch of the imagination.

Was that 4 carloads of Fish & Game that I saw parked on Seymour this morning at 7AM?

I’m sorry. You’re right. I’m wrong. It’s not “expressly forbidden”.

Here’s what I know:

• USFWS has designated the property as endangered species habitat.
• Under the Endangered Species Act, destruction of habitat is classified as a “take” of endangered species and is prohibited.
• The California Coastal Commission requested that Concar Enterprises cease disking operations in 2004 pending review by the Coastal Commission, California Fish and Game, and the US Fish and Wildlife service.
• To my knowledge, none of these agencies has determined that disking is allowable.
• Disking destroys snake and frog habitat.

So, you’re right. Not expressly forbidden. Just forbidden in all likelihood according to federal law.

And no, those 6 (not 4, I asked) carloads were from a private security agency hired by Concar, presumably for protection. Personally I was intimidated by the guy in the bullet proof vest.

This morning i received a call from barb. I then went to Wavecrest via Seymore and yes the dust was flying due to the disking. At the end of Seymore were the ‘rent a cop’ wannabes there to keep people off of the land. I took pictures of the activities and then got Scott Singer. We went out together parking at Smith fields we walked over to the areas being disked. We tried to get in front of the tractor but each time the tractor turned another direction. Is this the way a farmer usually prepares land? The work hand there was on the phone and soon the ‘owner’ and police were on the scene. When asked if they had the appropriate studies their answer was the old i have ‘my rights’ and ‘the city’s permission’. When asked why they were disking we were told they were planting a grass/wheat product(the name now ecapes me)after 10 years of non use?. How much to be disked? The entire area from the grove of trees to Hwy 1. They started nearest the bluffs for the obvious of reasons, to draw less attention to the activities and destroy the lands closest to the designated wetlands first. The tractor stopped while we were there and we left with the police. At the city, Scott talked with Deb and with her hands folded (tied) she showed us a ‘complaint’ form to be filled out and ‘the permission’ letter from the city’s attorney.

I called the coastal commission when I got home and am patiently waiting for a call back. In the meantime I am sure the tractor is again back at it.

p.a. chimienti

The HMB Review has an update about the disking on its website. The last sentence states:

“In 2004, herpetologist Chris Giorni produced photos of red-legged frogs he said were found on Wavecrest property.”

The words “…he said were found…” is the Review’s sneaky way of trying to impugn the integrity of the biologist’s find, much like Mr. Gardner’s claim above that the sensitive habitat issues on the site are a “ruse.”

Lastly, Ms. Stutsman may wish to re-think her comment above, given that the predicted events have in fact transpired.

Sam is totally spot-on about the “critter-card”. Doesn’t it sound a bit ridiculous that “the law” should be introduced as being violated, simply because one biologist spotted a frog on the property? I have frogs in my backyard, and I bet there are some red-legged frogs. Does that mean that if I spotted one (and documented it via an official form) then I cannot landscape my backyard?

It is obvious that the law is NOT black and white in this matter. I think the intent of the law is that: if a species is being endangered from no longer existing on this planet, then the “habitat” in question should somehow remain to co-exist. There certainly is no documentation that says the red-legged frog would not exist if that area in question were being developed. Just like my tract of homes having been built up, yet the frog still exists. And, look at the property in question. Folks speak of a pristine environment, but I believe it is far from that. From years of farming, injecting pesticides into the ground, nitrates added, etc and you have something far from untouched. Ray

Comment 29 by Don R. Whitt  on  Sep 09  at  9:51pm  •  All my comments • 

This is a 10 year conversation. No one can accuse us of working fast, can they?

The City of HMB clearly gave Wavecrest the “ok” to disc. Whether that violates Fed’l law is to be seen. My guess is that the snakes and frogs will have the good sense to get out of the way.

This thread led me to dig into a lot of the docs available on line to better understand the issues and understand the genesis for the ongoing dialogue between the pro-dev and enviro-sensitive types. I thank Barry and many others for making so much info available online.

It’s fairly clear that the City has been slanted towards Wavecrest development. Regardless of all other facets, this leads me to believe that no one on the City Board commutes or drives our streets. Forget the frogs - Can you imagine the traffic congestion resulting from nearly 300 add’l homes in HMB? With most wavecrest homes at “market rate” that means upper-middle class families with 2-3 cars. Oh boy.

On the other hand, Wavecrest’s appeal to the CA coastal commission is well-stated. They’re doing a decent job of addressing issues at a paper/legal level. If the “Build Our School Now” proponents want to be taken seriously, I suggest a more serious approach than 7.5 of their 10 page initiative being edits of the wavecrest proposal. I’d really like to see what is proposed for the Cunha Middle School site. You know - a site plan, renderings of the resulting product and a lot less happy talk about how their plan will cut down on polution downtown which is really a bunch of horse-dooky meant to appeal to their constituents.

Personally, I’m all for renovating Cunha and telling the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union to invest elsewhere. In one fell swoop. This town is too darn small already. Stuffing another thousand or two people and another 400-600 cars into HMB is only going to make it less livable. But we need more ammo. If the Feds decide that no harm has been done by disc-ing, where’s your red-legged frog now? And where will you find another endangered animal to drop out in the field to be “discovered”?

Thankyou Don!

Only wish I had put my feelings down so perfectly:

“Personally, I’m all for renovating Cunha and telling the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union to invest elsewhere. In one fell swoop. This town is too darn small already. Stuffing another thousand or two people and another 400-600 cars into HMB is only going to make it less livable. But we need more ammo. If the Feds decide that no harm has been done by disc-ing, where’s your red-legged frog now? And where will you find another endangered animal to drop out in the field to be “discovered”?”

Responding to points raised by Ray:

— “Doesn’t it sound a bit ridiculous that “the law” should be introduced as being violated, simply because one biologist spotted a frog on the property?”

Actually, not the case. US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists have visited the site and officially declared it endangered species habitat for both the California Red Legged Frog and the San Francisco Garter Snake. Barry has the letter to this effect posted on Coastsider.

— “I think the intent of the law is that: if a species is being endangered from no longer existing on this planet, then the “habitat” in question should somehow remain to co-exist. There certainly is no documentation that says the red-legged frog would not exist if that area in question were being developed.”

This is precisely what USFWS designation means. A species is officially listed as endangered if it is seriously threatened in its continued existence on this planet. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) includes habitat under it’s umbrella of protection. When the USFWS (the governmental agency charged with enforcing the act) designates an area as endangered species habitat, they are making an official determination that the future existence of the species in question is seriously threatened by harm to the particular piece of land.

Interestingly, the habitat designation under the ESA does not mean that owners of the land can no longer touch it. An “incidental take” permit allows landowners to engage in otherwise lawful activity on their land that would harm endangered species or their habitat. A land owner can receive one of these permits by working with the USFWS to develop a habitat conservation plan. This is what Caltrans did in its efforts to build the tunnel.

Concar skipped this step. They have not created a habitat conservation plan or received an incidental take permit. They have engaged in activities that may (only USFWS knows if they will) be deemed to violate the ESA. When fishermen or hunters take animals without a license, it’s called poaching. When environmentalists demonstrate without the appropriate permits, they are cited or arrested. We have laws in this country. Most people follow them all the time. Some people don’t and rely on the system not to catch them or punish them beyond the money they save or make elsewhere. Think frivolous lawsuits. Think Enron. At some level, this whole incident isn’t about endangered species at all. It’s about the rule of law and the responsibility of all of us to follow the laws.

Don R. Whitt wrote: “And where will you find another endangered animal to drop out in the field to be “discovered”?”

Don, you are starting to sound like the HMB Review. Like the Review, no evidence is presented to back up a very serious accusation. It’s all about spreading rumors, with the message that it’s ok to ignore the law.

Why do people find it surprising when an endangered animal is found in an area that has been determined by experts to be prime habitat for that animal? It’s like being surprised to find Great White Sharks off the Farrallons.

With development running rampant most everywhere else, the Coastside is one of the last refuges for many these species.

Posted by Don R. Whitt on 09/09 at 08:51 PM

___This is a 10 year conversation. No one can accuse us of working fast, can they?

Ten years is but a short time in the history of this Wavecrest project. Excerpts from the HMB Review article “Wave Crest Subdivision Depends on Water” published on JANUARY, 1947. states:

"Development of the Wave Crest Subdivision by Victory   
 Development Company of San Francisco depends upon Half
 Moon Bay's ability to supply sufficient water. With a sufficient
 supply of water guaranteed this project could begin in March 
 with anticipated completion in December, 1947.

 It is estimated the 150 homes...increase population by 
 600...Homes of various sizes, the largest having a half acre lot
 with 900 square feet of floor space...cost would range to
 $8,000. If demand exists it is possible that another 100 homes
 could be built."

How many more years will this conversation continue?

John Lynch

Mr La Guardia stated the following: “Actually, not the case. US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists have visited the site and officially declared it endangered species habitat for both the California Red Legged Frog and the San Francisco Garter Snake. Barry has the letter to this effect posted on Coastsider.”

Are you referring to this document: http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/docs/wavecrestusfg041122.pdf

If so, I have read this letter and it states: “As you know, both the Department and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consider the Wavecrest site to be potential habitat for both SFGS and California redlegged frogs.”

It says “potential” but does not actually state that this area is clearly a habitat under the laws of endangered species protection. Is there other documentation that we could all review?

I would totally agree with you if it were black and white. And in the end, Concar will ultimately pay for whatever laws it has broken. But in my mind, with many like areas of habitat within our community the real question is: How much area needs to be protected such that the CRLF and SFGS will not disappear from the earth? I am saying this because I had caught a gartner snake in my backyard several weeks ago, which is probably a SFGS. So, my tract contains houses, yet the snake (and frog) still lives. That is why one wonders why is the CRLF and SFGS used so frequently when development matters are brought up (devils slide, 92 and hwy 1 improvements). Ray

Oh, and let’s not forget that we have an annual growth rate in HMB, and that annual growth rate will always be reached, no matter how many new housing tracts are even discussed. So the issue of new homes, and more traffic is a non-issue, as we have to address these concerns no matter what new housing tracts are proposed. Ray

Hello This is Pat Chimienti. I drove down Seymore this morning and all of wave crest from the grove of trees to Hwy 1 has been disked. I watched for a moment to see the mist rising from the cut earth. I wonder however if seed or cement will be planted.

John - if they were currently proposing to build “homes of various sizes, the largest having a half acre lot with 900 square feet of floor space” would we still be arguing the point? A 900 sq ft house on a half acre (22,000 sq ft) parcel would allow a lot of habitat preservation. What’s destroying the Coastside environment isn’t only the number of houses, but also the size relative to their parcels, and the way they’re built by clearing the entire lot of every shred of anything growing, and then planting a token tree for the “landscaping plan.” Compare Midcoast areas which were built out long ago with areas being built out today — the older areas have more space around the houses, more trees, more of the natural environment remaining. Now look at east Miramar, an environmental disaster, or west Miramar close to SR 1, also an environmental disaster.

Also note that from the numbers you cite in the 1947 article, it appears that 4 people would be in each of those 900 sq ft houses. Now we have houses 3 times the size with the same or fewer people in them, but on a small fraction of the amount of land so that many more of them are wedged in.

Let’s try some simple arithmetic: The 1947 article mentions half acre sites for 4 person houses, which is which is 8 people per acre. I’m not intimately familiar with current development in HMB, so let’s go with what’s happening in the unincorporated Midcoast — average of 3 people in a 2650 sq ft house on a 5000 sq ft parcel. That’s 26 people per acre, or over triple the density proposed for Wavecrest in 1947.

More simple arithmetic: 900 sq ft house on 22,000 sq ft = 4% lot coverage. In the unincorporated Midcoast, what’s currently allowed is 50% lot coverage for a one story house or 35% lot coverage for a two story house. Since most new houses are two stories, that means that current development destroys 9 times the amount of habitat as in the 1947 proposal.

If we were sticking with the 1947 density, I wouldn’t waste my time on any of this.

If the developers were proposing building on Wavecrest at 4% lot coverage, would we be concerned about the habitat issues? I for one, wouldn’t. There’s lots of room for critters to coexist with people when the house is only using 4% of the land.

Ray, first of all, thanks for the calm tone of your posts. It’s nice to be having a substantive discussion of the issues instead of a rant fest.

The letter you linked to is not the one I was referring to, and after a cursory search of Coastsider I was unable to find the other letter. I have uploaded it to my site here: http://laguardias.org/082004 USFWS letter re Wavecrest.pdf

The important quotes out of the letter are as follows:

“This letter represents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) initial comments on the Wavecrest Village Development Project (WVDP). Our comments are made under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973”.

“The Service believes that implementation of the project may result in “take” of the red-legged frog and/or garter snake or habitat for these species. Red-legged frogs have been documented on-site and the site contains suitable habitat for both species. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of a federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” any such animal. Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter (50 CFR 17.3).”

Now once again, I’m no lawyer, but I think it reasonably possible that dragging a phalanx of 2 foot diameter sharp metal disks across the entire field just might significantly modify the habitat and even kill a few animals. I think Concar thinks this too. That’s why they had guys with shovels following the disking equipment and wandering the field afterwards. That’s also why they posted at least 4 cars on Seymour street during the daylight hours with security guards instructed to keep people off of the property until sundown yesterday.

Seems pretty black and white to me.

As to Concar paying, I think they’re taking the gamble that they won’t have to, or not much compared to what they might make from an eventual Wavecrest development. The Act calls for up to $75,000 in civil and criminal fines and up to 1 year in prison. What’s that compared to tens of millions of dollars in profit?

Finally, to your question about how much land do these species need, the USFWS just this past year greatly reduced the area that they would look at for potential habitat, so perhaps it’s less than it used to be. All the more reason to believe them when they actually do get around to calling land habitat.

mike

Thanks for your comments Mike, I appreciate them.

I just read your attachment. One quick comment: A snake was found 1 mile away, and near the creek! I find that quite odd how one can extrapolate that the area in question is the actual habitat for the snake, when a snake wasn’t even found on the property! Yes, you can assume, and make an educated guess. And they even point out that adjacent areas are suitable habitat, so one wonders how much of the habitat is actually necessary, to ensure that the frog or snake continues to live. Especially since the frogs and snakes are currently living on developed lands such as my backyard.

I would agree that this document is proof that the owner of the property must do something in order to accomodate the USFWS terms, if the land were being developed. Though I’m not sure I understand what is meant by option 2. My personal opinion is that if the site had always been farmland in the past, the owner should be able to continue farming today. So, I’m not sure the USFWS designation even applies to the property if it is being farmed, and therefore a law was broken. One can question the owner’s agenda, but that is really only conjecture at this point. And, I can understand the designation if the property were meant to be developed. Ray

This discussion seems to be taking place in two local forums (here and in the Review’s Talkabout). As a frequent visitor to the Coastside (I’d love to live there, but can’t afford the current real estate prices), I’m impressed with the passion and eloquence of the community when it comes to debating issues that affect its current and future wellbeing. I have to admit that I don’t always understand the finer points, but it definitely makes for some thought-provoking reading. The Half Moon Bay area is truly unique, and it’s great to see that so many people are dedicated to its preservation and care.