DOCSLIB.ORG

Case Study #6 San Bruno Mountain Habitat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case Study #6 San Bruno Mountain Habitat CASE STUDY #6 SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN1 Background San Bruno Mountain is the last, large open space left in the northern San Francisco Peninsula. Not surprisingly, the mountain had been the source of a bitter battle between local environmentalists and developers well before negotiations on the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan began. The mountain also is home to the San Bruno elfin butterfly (Callophyrs mossi bayensis) and mission blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides missionensis), both of which are listed as federally endangered, as well as the Callippe silverspot butterfly (Spayeria callippe callippe), which was a candidate for listing at the time of this dispute. An earlier skirmish resulted in a 1980 settlement between San Mateo County and Visitacion Associates, one of the developers, in which the county agreed to zone one-third of the mountain for development and leave the rest as parkland.2 All was quiet until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed to list and designate critical habitat for the Callippe silverspot butterfly. According to USFWS, "In the San Bruno Mountains, the species is uncommon, and proposed developments there would probably eliminate the butterfly." Visitacion Associates, which was extremely well-connected in Republican circles and had access to then President Ronald Reagan,3 took up arms, threatening to block the silverspot listing and have the mission blue and elfin butterflies delisted. Environmentalists, initially represented by the Committee to Save San Bruno, were equally determined to protect the butterflies and their habitat. It was in this highly charged political atmosphere that negotiations took place. The Parties 1. The Committee to Save San Bruno was well-established before the HCP negotiation began. The loosely organized coalition consisted of the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club, and the local chapter of the National Audubon Society. Their objective was to protect as much of the butterflies' habitat, and the mountain in general, as possible. 1 This case study was developed by Harlin Savage and Beth Delson. 2 The San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (Draft 1990), prepared by Mike O'Connell, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. (This narrative relies heavily on material included in the draft report.) 3 Telephone interview with Tom Adams, attorney for Committee to Save San Bruno, San Francisco, CA., April 1991. Source: Steven L. Yaffee and Julia M. Wondolleck, Negotiating Survival: An Assessment of the Potential Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques for Resolving Conflicts Between Endangered Species and Development (Ann Arbor, MI: School of Natural Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan, September 1994), a report prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States. San Bruno Mountain HCP Case #6 - 2 2. Visitacion Associates, a developer, thought it had settled the matter in 1980. When it became clear that endangered butterflies might block their bulldozers, their objective was to delist the butterflies and proceed with development. Visitacion Associates apparently spoke for the majority of landowners. 3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's main concerns were protecting the endangered butterflies and avoiding lawsuits. 4. The Cities of Brisbane, Daly City, South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Board. At the time of the dispute, the Brisbane City Council could be characterized as pro- environment. This later changed, with an election of a new city council, when amendments were proposed by the city and the developers. Daly City was pro-development. South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Board probably fell somewhere in between on the political spectrum. 5. The California Department of Fish and Game and the California Department of Forestry. The Process County Supervisor Bacciocco initially was responsible for getting the parties to agree to negotiate. Bacciocco ran the meetings and served as mediator. Lenny Roberts, a member of the Committee for Green Foothills, remembers Bacciocco as being fair and said, "(He) tried to keep the playing field even." The first step was to form a steering committee, which the parties agreed would operate by consensus. The next step was to hire an outside consultant, Thomas Reid Associates, to do the biological studies on which the plan would be based. While members of the Committee to Save San Bruno, including Roberts, attended meetings, the group was represented formally by two environmental attorneys, Tom Adams and Ann Broadwell. Adams and Broadwell also represented the City of Brisbane. Most of the city council members also were members of the Committee to Save San Bruno so conflicts were not apparent at the outset. The City of Brisbane paid the attorney's fees with money budgeted for planning activities. Without that infusion of funds, the environmental groups probably would not have had professional representation. To ensure the quality of Reid's biological studies, the steering committee decided to have three outside experts review his research. Whether the county approved the reviewers, who were all well known biologists at the University of California, or the steering committee approved them is unclear. Reviewers generally lauded Reid's studies, given time constraints, but they cautioned that estimates of butterfly populations and their locations were inexact and that the parties should plan accordingly. The local Sierra Club was somewhat skeptical and sent the report to Dr. Jay Hafernik, a biologist at San Francisco State University, for a second opinion.4 4 Telephone interview with Dr. Jay Hafernik, professor of biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. April 1991. San Bruno Mountain HCP Case #6 - 3 Hafernik was, and still is, outspoken in his criticism of Reid's study and the HCP agreement. According to Hafernik, the data provided a crude estimate of total butterfly populations but could not be used to identify, with any degree of certainty, which parts of the mountain they occupied. "Somehow," Hafernik says, "what should have been perceived as rough estimates took on a life of their own." Other members of the steering committee apparently were less concerned about the quality of the research and its interpretation. The Committee for Green Foothills did not send the report for additional review.5 Despite some internal dissent, the committee accepted the studies' results as adequate to serve their intended purpose.6 Having passed muster, Reid's report was used as the scientific basis for negotiations. In November 1982, the steering committee approved the San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan. The local governments then applied to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) permit. One notable bureaucratic hurdle remained. The USFWS had prepared a draft recovery plan for the mission blue butterfly, which would have designated the South Slope and Northeast Ridge as essential habitat, before negotiations got underway. The HCP allowed development in those areas, albeit scaled-down from the developer's initial proposal. The recovery plan was subsequently revised to eliminate significant discrepancies.7 The agency issued a non-jeopardy biological opinion and granted the 30-year permit in 1983. The Committee to Save San Bruno did not sign the agreement though several member groups voted privately to endorse it. The committee's unified front masked disagreement within its ranks; those who ultimately supported the plan did so warily.8 According to Adams, the coalition held together until compromise became inevitable. The group split and a splinter group, Bay Area Mountain Watch, formed opposed to the agreement. Support from other local groups, the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club and the Committee for Green Foothill, was lukewarm at best. The Sierra Club's board voted neither to oppose nor support the plan9 and Committee for Green Foothills narrowly approved it by a vote of 8-7.10 More than half a dozen national environmental groups protested the USFWS' award of the Section 10 (a) permit.11 The Agreement 5 Telephone interview with Lenny Roberts, member of The Committee for Green Foothills, San Francisco, CA. April 1991. 6 Telephone interview with Adams and Roberts. 7 O'Connell, draft report. 8 Telephone interview with Roberts, Loraine Burtzloff, Bay Area Mountain Watch, San Francisco, CA, and Ellie Larsen, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Palo Alto, CA. April 1991 9 O'Connell, draft report. Telephone interview with Roberts. Adams thinks they supported the plan. 10 O'Connell, draft report. 11 Including Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Xerces Society, Friends of the Earth, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Center for Law in the Public Interest, Center for Environmental Education, among others. San Bruno Mountain HCP Case #6 - 4 Assuming Reid's figures as the base, the HCP allows development of 10 percent of the butterflies' habitat; the rest becomes state, county or city-owned parkland. Not all of that 90 percent is good butterfly habitat, however. Some areas are infested with gorse (Ulex europaeus) and others lack the particular lupine (Lupinus albifrons) and violet species on which the butterflies depend for food. The agreement provides for the "enhancement" of poor quality habitat, but success has been very limited.12 The HCP restricts grading and construction to minimize disturbance of butterfly populations and provides stiff penalties for violations. In addition, the developer must post a $25,000 performance bond before work can begin. The agreement calls for monitoring and additional research to determine how the butterflies fare under the development regime. The "plan operator," in this case Thomas Reid Associates, is required to send annual monitoring reports to USFWS. The plan does not set specific goals for enhancement activities nor does it specify the kind of research to be undertaken. It does, however, stipulate that population studies should be done. Permanent funding for HCP mandated activities is provided through a trust fund fed by fees paid by landowners.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Butterfly Survey Data and Methodology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982–2000)
    Analysis of Butterfly Survey Data and Methodology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982–2000) 1. Status and Trends Travis Longcore Christine S. Lam John P. Wilson University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory Technical Report No. 1 Prepared for: Thomas Reid Associates 560 Waverly Street, Suite 201 Palo Alto, California 94301 Cover Photo: Lupines at San Bruno Mountain, March 2003 (T. Longcore) Preferred Citation: Longcore, T., C. S. Lam, and J. P. Wilson. 2004. Analysis of Butterfly Survey Data and Meth- odology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982–2000). 1. Status and Trends. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sus- tainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. Summary Managers surveyed for sensitive butterfly species with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan area between 1982 and 2000 using a haphazard “wandering tran- sect.” To extract as much valuable information as possible from the data collected by this suboptimal methodology we analyzed patterns of surveys and butterfly presence and absence within 250 m square cells gridded across the area within a Geographic In- formation System. While estimates of butterfly abundance were not possible, the data could be tested for trends in butterfly occupancy. For those cells surveyed during at least 10 years, no trends in the total number of occupied cells was evident for either Callippe silverspot butterfly or mission blue butterfly. There were cells, however, that showed positive or negative trends (p<0.2) in occupancy for each species (Callippe sil- verspot butterfly: 14 positive, 15 negative, 6 cells occupied all years; mission blue but- terfly: 40 positive; 40 negative, 2 cells occupied all years).
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco Tyrha Delger [email protected]
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-18-2018 Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco Tyrha Delger [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Recommended Citation Delger, Tyrha, "Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco" (2018). Master's Projects and Capstones. 739. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/739 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This Master’s Project Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco by Tyrha Delger is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements or the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Management at the University of San Francisco Submitted: Received: ……………………………. …………………………….... Your Name Date Allison Luengen, Ph.D. Date Name: Tyrha Delger USF MSEM Master’s Project Spring 2018 Final Paper Table of Contents List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………....1 List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………….3
    [Show full text]
  • Species Account MISSION BLUE BUTTERFLY Icaricia Icarioides Missionensis
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species Account MISSION BLUE BUTTERFLY Icaricia icarioides missionensis CLASSIFICATION: Endangered Federal Register 41:22041; June 1, 1976 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr99.pdf CRITICAL HABITAT: None designated RECOVERY PLAN: Final Recovery Plan for San Bruno Elfin and Mission Blue Butterflies. October 10, 1984 (This plan is now out of date. Contact us if you need a copy.) 5-YEAR REVIEW: Completed February 2010. No change recommended. www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/five_year_review/doc3216.pdf Mission Blue Butterfly (285 KB) David Wright, USFWS DESCRIPTION The mission blue ( Icaricia icarioides missionensis ) is a small, delicate butterfly in the Lycaenidae (gossamer-winged butterfly) family. Wingspan is about 2.5 to 3.6 centimeters. (1 to 1.5 inch). The upper wing surfaces of the male are iridescent blue and lavender with black margins fringed with long white hair-like scales. There are no spots on the upper surfaces of the wings. In males, the ventral surfaces of the wings are whitish with small circular gray spots in the submarginal areas and larger circular black spots located in post-median and submedian areas of the fore and hind wings. The body of the male is dark bluish brown. Females have dark brown upper wing surfaces marked with blue basal areas. The margins and wing fringe are similar to the male. Female underwings are stone gray with a dot pattern similar to the males'. The adult flight season extends from late March to early July, depending on the location and microclimatic conditions. Females lay eggs throughout the mating flight.
    [Show full text]
  • San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan
    SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Year 2006 Activities Report For Endangered Species Permit PRT-2-9818 Submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service by the County of San Mateo February 2007 San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan -- 2006 Activities Report TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................... iii SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4 II. STATUS OF SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................................. 4 A. Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) ................................................ 5 B. Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) ................................................ 5 C. San Bruno Elfin (Callophrys mossii bayensis) ................................................................ 10 D. Butterfly Monitoring Recommendations for 2006 .......................................................... 13 E. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis ............................................... 13 F. San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) ....................................... 14 G. California Red-legged
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Butterfly Habitat Restorations
    Planning Butterfly Habitat Restorations Kim R. Mason Introduction Ecologists and entomologists in Britain and the United States have participated in numerous projects aimed at restoring, expanding, and mitigating losses of habitat for native butterflies. Some of these butterflies have been listed as threatened or endangered; others have been lost or are in decline in certain portions of their former ranges. The experiences and observations of these scientists illustrate potential needs and concerns when planning to restore or improve existing butterfly habitat. This paper will relate several cases in which complex biotic and abiotic interactions played important roles in the success or failure of butterfly habitat restoration and the reestablishment of butterfly populations. Although each butterfly species has its own unique combination of habitat requirements and life history, some fundamental principles concerning butterfly biology (New 1991) are significant in planning habitat restorations. Most caterpillars are herbivores, and many are specialists which feed on only one kind or a few related kinds of plants. Therefore, the presence of appropriate larval host plants is the primary requirement of habitat restoration. In addition, many butterfly species require that the larval food plant be in a particular growth stage, of a certain height, exposed to the proper amount of sunlight, or in close proximity to another resource. Adults typically utilize a wider range of plants or other resources as food, and flight gives them expanded mobility. However, adult dispersal ability varies from species to species. For some, physical features such as a few meters of open space, a stream, a hedge, or a change in gradient create intrinsic barriers to dispersal; other species routinely migrate long distances.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Cruz County San Mateo County
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. M A Y - 2 0 1 0 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................2 Background & Collaboration...............................................................................................3 The Landscape .....................................................................................................................6 The Wildfire Problem ..........................................................................................................8 Fire History Map................................................................................................................10 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................11 Reducing Structural Ignitability.........................................................................................12 x Construction Methods............................................................................................13 x Education ...............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of the Grasslands of The
    A Survey of the Grasslands of the Northeast Ridge (Guadalupe Hills) as Habitat for the Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) and the Callippe Silverspot (Speyeria callippe callippe) For San Bruno Mountain Watch 44 Visitacion Avenue Brisbane, California 94005 May 14, 2007 By Thomas Y. Wang Biologist San Francisco, California Introduction The Mission Blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides missionensis and Callippe Silverspot Speyeria callippe callippe are two endangered butterfly species that live on San Bruno Mountain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Mission Blue in 1976 (New 1993), and the Calllippe Silverspot was listed in 1997 (USFWS 2007). Both have a restricted range due mainly to urbanization and their particular ecology. The Mission Blue butterfly lays eggs only on several species of lupines, and has an association with specific ant species for a part of its lifecycle (Cushman and Murphy 1993). The Callippe Silverspot also has a restricted host plant – Viola pedunculata. It oviposits in the vicinity of Viola pedunculata (Thomas Reed Associates 1982) or on them (Arnold 1981). The host plants for both butterflies are plants of the grasslands – a scarce plant community of the Franciscan peninsula due to urbanization. The Habitat Conservation Plan of 1983 allowed for take of Mission Blue lands in exchange for land preserved elsewhere and restoration of butterfly habitat. Parts of the Northeast Ridge became the San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. Other parts of it were slated for development and miscellaneous open space. As part of the Habitat Conservation Plan, mark-release-recapture studies were performed on the Callippe Silverspot and the Mission Blue.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared By
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. APRIL - 2 0 1 8 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3 Background & Collaboration ............................................................................................... 4 The Landscape .................................................................................................................... 7 The Wildfire Problem ........................................................................................................10 Fire History Map ............................................................................................................... 13 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................14 Reducing Structural Ignitability .........................................................................................16 • Construction Methods ........................................................................................... 17 • Education .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • And Mission Blue Butterfly Populations Found at Milagra Ridge and the Mission Blue Butterfly Population at Marin Headlands Are Managed by the GGNRA
    San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Patrick Kobernus: Adult male mission blue butterfly. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California February 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Strategic Fire Plan San Mateo
    Unit Strategic Fire Plan San Mateo - Santa Cruz Cloverdale VMP - 2010 6/15/2011 Table of Contents SIGNATURE PAGE ................................................................................................................................ 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 SECTION I: UNIT OVERVIEW UNIT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 4 UNIT PREPAREDNESS AND FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITIES................................................. 8 SECTION II: COLLABORATION DEVELOPMENT TEAM ........................................................................................................... 12 SECTION III: VALUES AT RISK IDENTIFICATION OF ASSETS AT RISK ................................................................................ 15 COMMUNITIES AT RISK ........................................................................................................ 17 SECTION IV: PRE FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FIRE PREVENTION ................................................................................................................. 18 ENGINEERING & STRUCTURE IGNITABILITY ............................................................... 19 INFORMATION AND EDUCATION .................................................................................. 22 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Blue DRAFT Recovery Plan
    http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/lists/e501011.htm (DRAFT) - Taxonomy Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, MISSION Species Id ESIS501011 Date 13 MAR 96 TAXONOMY NAME - BUTTERFLY, BLUE, MISSION OTHER COMMON NAMES - BUTTERFLY, BLUE, MISSION; BLUE and MISSION ELEMENT CODE - CATEGORY - Terrestrial Insects PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - ARTHROPODA, CLASS AND SUBCLASS - INSECTA, ORDER AND SUBORDER - LEPIDOPTERA, FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - LYCAENIDAE, GENUS AND SUBGENUS - ICARICIA, SPECIES AND SSP - ICARIOIDES, MISSIONENSIS SCIENTIFIC NAME - ICARICIA ICARIOIDES MISSIONENSIS AUTHORITY - TAXONOMY REFERENCES - COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY - Mission Blue Butterfly Icaricia icarioides missionensis (Hovanitz, 1937) KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Insect PHYLUM: Arthropoda CLASS: Insecta ORDER: Lepidoptera FAMILY: Lycaenidae The taxon Icaricia (Plebejus) icarioides missionensis appears to be a phenotypic intermediate between darkly marked "inland" populations referred to as subspecies I. i. pardalis and populations on the immediate coast which sport extremely pale ventral wing surfaces called subspecies I. i. pheres. Because pardalis phenotypes effectively surround the original distribution of I. i. pheres (now extinct in San Francisco), the subspecies I. i. missionensis may well be polyphylectic in origin, having arisen independently north and south of the center of I. i. pheres distribution. Thus the present "continuous" distribution of the Mission blue is an artifact of the disappearance of I. i. pheres. This taxon may be identified by comparison with illustrations of Icaricia (Plebejus) icarioides missionensis on Plate 59 (Fig.1 and 2) of "The butterflies of North America" (03). The black spotting of the ventral aspect of the male is slightly more intense than average. The Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, MISSION Species Id ESIS501011 Date 13 MAR 96 following is the original description of the Mission blue butterfly (02,04): "Upper surface of wings: Male, blue with black border and white fringes; anal angle and body clothed with white hair.
    [Show full text]
  • DA-04-2523A1.Pdf
    Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 August 12, 2004 DA 04-2523 Released: August 13, 2004 1800E3-JLB KNTV License Inc. c/o Meridith S. Senter, Esq. Leventhal Senter & Lerman, PLLC 2000 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc. c/o Wade H. Hargrove, Esq. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP Post Office Box 1800 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 KTVU Partnership c/o Kevin F. Reed, Esq. Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Re: Applications of KNTV Licensee Inc. For Minor Modifications in Licensed Facilities for KNTV(TV) and KNTV-DT, San Jose, California; Fac. ID 35280 File Nos. BPCT-20031001AKF and BPCDT-20031001AKO Dear Licensees: This is with respect to the above-referenced applications for minor modification to the licensed analog and digital facilities of KNTV(TV), channel 11, and KNTV-DT, channel 12, San Jose, California, licensed to KNTV License Inc. (NBC). NBC proposes to move its analog and digital facilities from Loma Prieta Mountain, a location southwest of San Jose, to the antenna farm located between San Jose and San Francisco on San Bruno Mountain. Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc. (Young), the licensee of station KRON-TV, San Francisco, filed an informal objection against both applications. KTVU Partnership (KTVU), the licensee of KTVU(TV), Oakland, California, KICU-TV, San Jose, California, and KRXI-TV, Reno, Nevada, filed an informal objection to the KNTV(TV) application. The DTV modification application satisfies all of the Commission’s rules, including the principal community coverage requirement of 43dBu for channels 7 though 13.
    [Show full text]