San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Activities - Case Study Example

Case Study: San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan The Endangered Species Act provides for an agreement between the federal, state, or local governments and non-federal landowners on conservation of endangered species. One of the land management tool provided under the act is the establishment of the Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP). The non-federal landowners are permitted to protect endangered species in the process of developing their projects. There are many of the projects that have been implemented resulting to conservation of a wide variety of organisms. The sizes of the HCPs are varied and the species are different; some specialize on a single species while others conserve more than one. The duration of HCPs can range from one year up to one hundred years. The United States Fish and Wildlife Services have the discretion to negotiate with landowners when there are no other stakeholders used. Found on the north of San Francisco Peninsula stands the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. In this essay, this HCP will be analyzed in details from all dimensions. A development project in the San Bruno Mountains necessitated the development of the San Bruno Mountains HCP. There arose a conflict on the development of the mountainous region by the Visitacion Associates with the San Mateo County authorities. To discourage the development of the area, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) came in and recommended that the habitat would be conserved for butterfly conservation. The complexity arose from the interconnectedness of the Visitation Associates with the Republican government of Ronald Reagan. Despite their support from the Federal government, the local environmentalists were firm in supporting USFWS propositions. As a result of the confrontations, there was developed an agreement between the developer and the San Mateo County authorities to have the HCP established. The HCP provides a habitat for the mission blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides missionensis) and the San Bruno elfin butterfly (Callophyrs mossi bayensis). These two have been found to be endangered. In addition, the HCP provides for the protection of the Callippe silverspot butterfly (Spayeria callippe callippe). Despite the heightened disagreements at the start of the negotiations in the 1980s, the HCP was successfully established (Thomas Reid Associates, 1993). The establishment of the San Bruno HCP was surrounded by several controversies especially based on the involvement of many parties. The San Mateo County supervisor Bacciocco spearheaded the negotiation process by bringing the parties together. However due to the varied interest, the challenge was enormous. Before the negotiations, environmentalists had formed a committee that would see the proposed developments were halted. This committee was made up of the Loma Prieta, Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) and the National Audubon Society. Other interested parties comprised of the major developer, Vasitacion Associates who had brought their bulldozers ready for the project. On the other hand, the USFWS were interested in having the endangered species within the San Bruno Mountains protected. Despite the hurdles in reaching the agreement, it came into force. Only 10% of the habitat was approved for development, the rest was converted to city-owned parkland (TRA Environmental Sciences, 2012). Though the entire remaining zone is not all occupied by butterflies, it contains lupine and gorse, which are used by butterflies as food. The HCP provides for minimal disturbance to the butterflies by ensuring that grading and construction is restricted. Though the enhancement of the habitat is provided in the HCP, very little success has been evident. Under the implementation by the Thomas Reid associates, the HCP requires that additional research be implemented as well as monitoring be done. The organization is obliged to submit annual monitoring reports to the USFWS. However, the challenge arises from the non-specificity of the provision of the HCP in that it does not provide for the type of research that ought to be conducted neither does it provide for the specific enhancement strategies that ought to be developed (Longcore, Lam, Kobernus, Polk & Wilson, 2010). The implementation of the San Bruno HCP has faced successes and challenges alike. The initial agreement has been altered as a result of questions being raised concerning the ecological viability of the plan. Days after the signing of the agreement, the developer was pushing for a boundary change, an aspect that he was successful. In addition, more amendments were made that left a negative impact to the environment colonized by the butterflies. Despite the concerted efforts by the Committee to save San Bruno Mountain lawsuits and politics facilitated the transformation from the initial agreement, which was friendlier to the butterflies (Morente, 2008). Efforts to restore the habitat by limiting developments have been fruitless. The regions that were under gorse have since been developed and there seems to be no goodwill in restoring the initial agreement that was focused on the welfare of the butterflies. As a contradiction of the initial agreement, almost 230 acres that was initially set aside for the San Bruno Mountain butterfly habitat was developed between 1983 and 1993 (Carlsson, 2011). With the recent developments within the mountainous region, the original conservation is at risk. It is paramount that conservation efforts are consideration. Chief among these strategies is to reconsider reclaiming land that has not been developed but was meant for the butterflies in the original agreement. The county and city authorities should be proactive in the implementation of the plan and developing systems that ensures that it is not altered from time to time for the benefit of the developers. It is also important that alternative feeding of the butterflies be sought to help improve on their food supply after some of the areas occupied by gorse has been encroached. The actions described in the plan are very feasible. This is because the main motivation of the plan is to facilitate the preservation of the biodiversity; otherwise, the development of the region is a lower priority that should not be given much weight. Alternatively, the developers should be at a position of developing the 10% area that was provided under the terms of the initial agreement (TRA Environmental Sciences, 2012). It is no secret that the initial insect population has been affected tremendously. In conclusion, the trend experienced in the enhancement of the San Bruno HCP is non-evident. It seems that there has been an influence of political power in the implementation of the plan. Though the plan has somehow succeeded in having the endangered species, their populations have been affected. References Carlsson, C. (2011). Ten years that shook the city San Francisco. San Francisco: City Lights Books. Longcore, T., Lam, C. S., Kobernus, P., Polk, E., & Wilson, J. P. (2010). Extracting useful data from imperfect monitoring schemes: endangered butterflies at San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County, California (1982–2000) and implications for habitat management. Journal Of Insect Conservation, 14(4), 335. Morente, C. (2008, Mar 12). Bye-bye, brisbane butterfly?: Council approves home proposal in endangered species' habitat.McClatchy - Tribune Business News Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/465821802?accountid=45049 Thomas Reid Associates, (1993). San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Activities Report-- 1992. TRA Environmental Sciences. (2012). San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. Report. Read More