News
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Sign up for Email Updates
CGF In the News
Press Inquiries
Past Articles
Calendar

In January, birder Gary Deghi led CGF hikers on a raptor-watching hike at Wavecrest, which has more diversity and greater numbers of raptors than anywhere else in San Mateo County.

The continuing saga of the wetlands at Wavecrest
by Lennie Roberts

Three years ago, wildlife biologist and professional environmental consultant Gary Deghi eloquently described in Green Footnotes the importance of Half Moon Bay's North Wavecrest Area as winter foraging habitat for raptors. Gary outlined Wavecrest's unique mosaic of habitats, which are made to order for birds of prey including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls: mature trees that provide perching and roosting sites, dense cover in coyote brush and riparian corridors, and grasslands and wetlands that support diverse species of prey.

At the time Gary wrote his article, the California Coastal Commission was reviewing the proposed Wavecrest Village project, a large residential and commercial development located on a portion of a 450-acre undeveloped tract of land known as North Wavecrest. Much of the winter habitat for a wide variety of hawks, falcons and owls would be paved over to accommodate this project.

Wetlands, wetlands, who's got the wetlands?
For more than three years now, the Coastal Commission has been waiting for a proper delineation of the site's extensive wetlands. Coastal wetlands are one of the most threatened habitats in California - over 90% have already been lost statewide.

The Coastal Act gives highest priority to preservation of these environmentally rich and sensitive areas, but the developer, Wavecrest Partners, and the Coastal Commission's professional biologists have still not been able to reach agreement as to the extent of the wetlands at Wavecrest.

Half Moon Bay and developer begin negotiating...
A year ago, the City of Half Moon Bay and the developer began intensive negotiations that seemed on the verge of a breakthrough that could protect the disputed wetland areas.

...when enter the California red-legged frog
The discovery of a California red-legged frog swimming along in one of the ditches on the property in June 2004 by California Academy of Sciences herpetologist Chris Giorni injected a whole new set of challenges to address.

The developers' prior biological investigations did not document any frogs. This is not unusual: consultants for developers often fail to find protected species, as they typically go out on a property only once or twice, and often at times of the year when plants or animals are hard to find. Even when protocols have been followed carefully, frogs and other animals may be found on a site one year and not the next, due to fluctuations in population numbers and environmental conditions.

Because the red-legged frog is federally protected under the Endangered Species Act, the developer must now go through an extensive process to avoid harming either the frog or its habitat. The frog (celebrated by Mark Twain as the famous jumping frog of Calaveras County) breeds in ponds and slow-moving streams, and uses dry upland retreats during the dry season, so presumably the entire Wavecrest area could be considered as habitat.

Habitat plowed under
The plot thickened last November, when Mike Ferreira, then Mayor of Half Moon Bay, discovered a local farmer disking (plowing) a 20-acre portion of the proposed development area late on a Friday afternoon. Despite the fact that normally no one would be reachable until Monday, when the plowing would be already a fait accompli, Mike managed to get the activity stopped.

Disking of wetlands has been a device used up and down the Coast and throughout California to eliminate troublesome habitat issues for developers. Since in most areas, cultivation of agricultural fields is exempt from any permit requirements, developers have used this loophole to get around laws protecting wetlands and habitat for protected species.

Environmentalists were outraged when developers Peery/Arrillaga disked the nesting habitat of burrowing owls in Mountain View's baylands a few years ago. Coincidentally, the lawyers advising on this Mountain View project have connections with some of the lawyers advising the Wavecrest developers.

Can development proceed?
Under federal law, a developer can follow one of several paths to resolve a project that may cause harm to a federally protected species. One is simply to move the project to a different area, a real possibility for the Wavecrest developers. Another is to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan, which would entail extensive surveys over one to two years, but could ultimately allow "take" (destruction) of some of the species' habitat.

Alternatively, if there are federal funds or a federal agency involved in approval of the project, consultation with federal wildlife agencies regarding protected species is typically quicker and less expensive.

The Wavecrest developers are now attempting to use the latter approach. They recently submitted an application to the Army Corps of Engineers that proposes to create new wetland habitat for the frog in exchange for filling (eliminating) existing wetland areas; the project's impact on wetlands could provide the federal connection the developers seek, and allow them to move forward with habitat destruction.

However, it's not likely to be that easy. One catch is that the Army Corps definition of wetlands is more restrictive than the one used by the Coastal Commission, which also has to approve development at Wavecrest. The Corps uses a three-parameter approach for delineating wetlands, including wetland vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology; the Coastal Commission requires only one of these parameters to be present in order to define wetlands. So even if the Army Corps finds no wetlands present and approves the project, the Coastal Commission (and US Fish and Wildlife Service) might find otherwise.

What's next?
The Army Corps' evaluation will likely require a new delineation for wetlands on this property. There will be opportunities for public comment in this process. Will the developer's disking succeed in altering the extent of wetlands on the property? Even if the Army Corps allows destruction of wetlands, can the developer pass muster with the Coastal Commission? Will other species of concern such as the San Francisco garter snake also be discovered? Will the owls, hawks, and eagles continue to have a home at Wavecrest?

Stay tuned - this saga has a long way to go.