Fish and Wildlife service says Wavecrest partner’s Review column isn’t supported by the facts

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has responded to an opinion piece in the Half Moon Bay Review. The agency has sent a letter to Julie Baigent, counsel to Wavecrest partner Concar Enterprises, in response to Baigent’s column in last Wednesday’s Review. Baigent’s opinion piece was intended to "correct several wrong or misleading statements in a Review article headlined ‘Wavecrest’s sensitive habitat partially tilled’."

In the letter, Cay C. Goude, Assistant Field Supervisor at USFWS noted that, contrary to Baigent’s statement in the Review, that Concar was aware that all of Wavecrest is considered sensitive habitat for endangered species, the dead snakes found after the disking were not found to be common garter snakes, and that Concar’s safeguards were inadequate to protect endangered species on the property [PDF of letter].

Baigent wrote in the Review:

...the US Fish and Wildlife Service had not made an "August determination" that the North Wavecrest property "is habitat for the California red-legged frog" as reported in the newspaper. The US Fish and Wildlife Service had expressed an opinion that portions of the property appeared to be "suitable habitat" for red-legged frogs, but has not made any formal determination that the property does in fact constitute sensitive habitat.

...

At no time did I say that Concar was aware that the property has been "deemed red-legged frog habitat", because, as I said before, Concar has been informed of no such formal designation.

But the USFWS remembers this differently. Goude’s letter says, "The Service would like to reiterate our formal determination, as reflected in both our August 24, 2004 and November 16, 2004 letters, that the entire Wavecrest site, including the portion owned by Concar Enterprises, is suitable habitat for both the threatened California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (red-legged frog) and the endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) and should be considered sensitive habitat for both species."

Later in the article, Baigent said:

We understand that the USFWS has determined that a dead snake alleged to have been found on the Wavecrest site was a common coast garter snake and not a special status species, and although there was no intent to injure any animal, if one in fact has been injured, this was not the species the monitoring biologist was charged to avoid.

Goude notes, "The Service would also like to clarify that the dead snake found on the Wavecrest site after the disking activity, and referenced in your piece, has not yet been positively identified as to the exact species.  The snake is being sent for analysis to determine if it is the endangered San Francisco garter snake, a coast garter snake, or a hybrid of the two species.  The Service would also like to stress that the presence of a biological monitor during disking activities (or other surface-disturbing activities) will not insure that take of red-legged frogs or San Francisco garter snakes will not occur. "