City Council considers fate of Brisbane's butterflies
The thing about small town politics is that they’re real. Council members have the power to make decisions that directly impact nearly everyone who lives in the city.
On Tuesday night, more than 120 people packed Brisbane’s city hall. That’s a lot, considering the city’s total population is only about 3,600.
At stake: a plan the City Council is considering that would build 71 homes on San Bruno Mountain’s Northeast Ridge, a favored habitat for two endangered butterfly species – the Callippe silverspot and the Mission blue. Why do Brisbane residents care? Because it involves San Bruno Mountain, and for them, anything concerning the mountain is of prime importance.
This isn’t just a story about small town intrigue. San Bruno Mountain, is an oasis of open space south of San Francisco that preserves the former ecology of its larger neighbor. And the elements add up: money, politics, history, science and speculation, not to mention a possible life sentence for an endangered breed of butterfly.
You could say this particular drama began back in 1982 when the Brisbane City Council passed its first proposal to build on the Northeast Ridge. Since then, the developer, Brookfield Homes, has built 428 homes. But the original plans have changed several times: first in 1989, when the developer agreed to reduce the number of homes it would build; and later, in 1997, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Callippe silverspot as an endangered species, prompting more negotiations between the city, the developer and the federal agency responsible for the butterfly’s welfare.
For nearly three decades, the city has attempted to travel the middle road, to broker environmentally sensitive deals that also respect private property rights. Environmentalists have protested at each stage. And U.S. Fish and Wildlife? Well, after more than 10 years of negotiations, to the dismay of conservation groups, the agency gave its final okay to the housing project in May of 2009.
Tension between the parties came to a head at Tuesday’s city council meeting. Cay Goude, assistant field supervisor for U.S. Fish and Wildlife, addressed the council members from a podium. Behind her sat the crowd of mostly residents, alerted to the meeting through a mailing sent by San Bruno Mountain Watch, a conservation group.
Goude announced, “We would not have issued this permit if we did not think this was to the benefit of the long term survival of the butterfly.”
But it was clear others at the meeting disagreed. When given a chance to speak, representatives from the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and San Bruno Mountain Watch pleaded with the council not to approve the plan.
They reminded the council of familiar natural enclaves in San Francisco: Twin Peaks, McLaren Park, Bayview Hill—islands of green surrounded by urban environments, all once home to butterflies that have now disappeared from those areas.
If approved, the proposed development in Brisbane could also drive butterflies on the Northeast Ridge to the same fate, environmentalists said.
“Don’t take a chance with extinction on our collective watch,” said Ken McIntire, executive director of San Bruno Mountain Watch.
In total, 19 biologists, impassioned conservationists and residents spoke against the project. Two residents spoke in favor.
This was small town politics at work. A few speakers addressed the council members by their first names. A woman who had grown up in Brisbane, and spoken against the project, narrowed her eyes at residents who dared to say they wanted it. Meanwhile, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife representatives passed notes back and forth.
The environmentalist’s concerns are backed by science. San Bruno Mountain is one of the last places in the world where the Callippe silverspot butterfly lives. (Small populations have also been reported in Alameda and Solano counties.) If approved, the additional homes would eliminate a corridor of open space that connects butterflies on one side of the mountain to the other. The separation could decrease their chances for survival on the remaining open space on the Northeast Ridge, McIntire said.
To travel from the Northeast Ridge, Callippe silverspot butterflies will have to fly over two main roads – Guadalupe Canyon Parkway and Carter Street – and through a grove of eucalyptus trees. Environmental studies have cited roads, trees and homes as barriers for this particular species, McIntire said.
Still, Brisbane city staff and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urged the council to vote yes – arguing not passing the plan would threaten the butterflies’ survival. They said this proposal is a big improvement on versions that were passed in 1982 and 1989. It cuts development from 40 to 20 acres, and sets up a $4 million habitat restoration endowment, to be funded by Brookfield.
Chris Nagano, deputy assistant field supervisor for U.S. Fish and Wildlife, said the habitat restoration fund is critical for the butterflies’ survival. Conserved habitat on San Bruno Mountain lost approximately 127 acres of grassland between 1982 and 2004 due to invasive plant species, he said.
“If [habitat] management doesn’t occur on this mountain, Callippe is going to be gone,” Nagano said. “It’s a critical time for this species.”
And when council members called Nagano to the podium for a second time, he dismissed concerns about the butterfly’s flight patterns. He said the homes would not obstruct movement from one side of the mountain to the other.
“They move around, that’s what they do,” he said. “Yeah, I think they can fly through that area.”
The City Council will meet again on Feb. 1 to continue the hearing.
The pleasure kills
facebook
twitter
Discussion
I think bugman should stop hiding behind a cute name and identify himself, as have the people he has been criticizing.
While finding funds for the stewardship work that needs doing is a problem, paying for it by giving up endangered species habitat is morally bankrupt.
If the project were redesigned to leave a reasonable corridor south of Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, a lot of funds would still come in for habitat restoration, the builder would still build, and the butterflies would have a better chance of survival.
Bugman should not discount the power of volunteers either. SBMW tripled its volunteer offerings last year, and would like to extend its outreach to other communities like it has to Brisbane.
Marryanne, you are right. I had the wrong guy. But, I'm not wrong about him not being a lepidopterist. The interview you linked to says it's his hobby, not his profession. So I guess he could call himself an armature lepidopterist.
I didn't hear anything in those videos that sounded like the Fish and Wildlife contradicted itself. When did they say the butterfly couldn't fly over 15 feet? They were asked by the Mayor how they normally fly. Mr. Nagano said 10-15 feet, but he didn't say they couldn't fly higher than that. Mr. Nagano said he'd be surprised if they flew over the quarry, but that they could fly through the industrial park.
Ms. Salmon, I ask this question, what exactly do you think needs to be done in the conserved areas and how will it be paid for?
Dear Bugguy,
I think that it might be worthwhile to double-check the web site you found for Liam O'Brien -- it has an .au suffix attached to the URL. That Liam is from Australia, and if yoo recall, the Liam O'Brien at the Council meeting is an American, who lives in San Francisco.
As a San Franciscan I've been aware of Liam's work because of his desire to protect the endangered Green Hairstreak butterfly that inhabits various locations around the City, one being not far from where I live in Visitacion Valley: Bayview Hill.
Here is an interview that local television station KGO did with Liam last year: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/abc7_salutes&id=6920812.
Maryanne
Since the HCP came into effect 26 years ago, 330 acres of habitat have been permanently destroyed by houses and roads, and 230 acres are "temporarily" and perhaps permanently disturbed--that’s a total of 560 acres. Most of the disturbed land will never return to native habitat, and some has perpetual erosion problems.
In that same time period, 122 acres were lost to coastal scrub succession, in part due to fire suppression due to housing. The HCP will "sunset" in 2012. During its duration, far more habitat will have been lost to development and accompanying disturbances than to coastal scrub advance and invasive species.
We need to see successful methods at work on San Bruno Mountain before any more habitat is taken by development. No amount of blood money from the developer will replace the habitat that will be destroyed and the flight corridor that will be cut off by this mega housing development.
If you actually listen to all of the testimony by USFWS - especially Mr. Nagano's, you will hear the tremendous inconsistencies in what they said and Mr. Nagano was often referring to other species of butterflies, not San Bruno Mountain's endangered Callippe Silverspot butterfly.
This clearly shows that no real and reliable studies have actually been done specifically on the Callippe Silverspot, their mating habits and their flight patterns. At one point he says that they can not fly over 15 feet high and at another that they can fly over the industrial park with buildings that are well over 15 feet high. He sums it up with they will fly where they fly. “They move around, that’s what they do,” he said. “Yeah, I think they can fly through that area.”
What utter hubris! And on this hangs the fate of a species.
Thanks for responding!
Thanks for your comments. The number 19 in the article refers to the total number of people who spoke against the proposal at the meeting, including biologists, conservationists and residents. We have corrected the number of acres lost to invasive species so that it now refers to conserved habitat on San Bruno Mountain.
Who were the 19 biologists that were at the meeting? From San Bruno Mountain Watch's youtube posts I only count about 7. Unless a bunch of biologists were there that didn’t identify themselves or maybe all the posts are not up yet? The ones I counted were four from the U.S Fish and Wildlife (all of whom work with endangered species every day of their working lives). There were a person from the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, but I can’t say if they are biologists or not (if they are, why didn't say they were?). But if you assume they were then the total number of biologists there was 7, 4 from the Fish and Wildlife + 1 from Mountain Watch + 1 Sierra Club and + 1 from Audubon. So that makes 4 biologists that supported the project (all of which work exclusively with endangered species) and 3 (maybe that is) that did not support the project. There was one guy who identified himself as a "lepidopterist" but he's not according to his web profile (http://www.liamobrien.com.au/info.php) which says he's a painter and photographer, his CV doesn't list anything about science or biology, so he doesn't count.
Also in looking at the videos on youtube, the statement above that says Fish and Wildlife said the Northeast ridge has lost 127 acres is wrong. They said that habitat had been lost over the entire mountain. The Northeast Ridge is not the only spot on the mountain that has a problem with invasive species taking over. The entire mountain has a problem with them.
Also it looks like a critical point not clearly made above is why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife thinks this approval is important to the survival of the butterflies on San Bruno Mountain (not just the callippe, but the mission blue and San Bruno elfin)? State and County Parks (the folks who manage the mountain) do not have the funding to keep the invasive species in control (and given State and County budgets I doubt they will ever come up with the money on their own). Invasive species are not going to magically go away, regardless of whether this last development occurs or not, so the money has to come from somewhere. No one else has offered to put up money and San Bruno Mountain Watch going out every weekend to pull weeds by hand isn’t enough. If it were enough we wouldn’t have loss 127 ac to invasive species already.