Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/9/2021 Item 4a, Schmidt (3)Re: Night Use Cerro San Luis Obispo —Technical Concerns Nov. 6, 2021 Dear Council Members, In this letter I wish to continue discussion of CEQA technical concerns I raised for your Oct. 19 meeting, and to incorporate what was expressed then into these current comments. But first, I'd like to share a graph from a wildlife study elsewhere which I think highlights what a lot of us are trying to get you to understand: that further disrupting wildlife in the post -dusk hours is very hard on them and threatens their survival. The study' from which the graph is taken was at a Southern California natural reserve with daytime recreation. Researchers were able to study wildlife movements during a period when the reserve was closed, and again when it reopened. The graph concerns only two species, cougar (apex predator— the red line) and deer (prey— the black line). In the "undisturbed" by humans condition, cougar activity peaks in the early evening hours. For deer, peak activity is in daylight morning hours. But with the introduction of daytime human disturbance, look at what happens: • Activity ranges of both species contract. • Activity peaks of the two species, predator and prey, are compressed to coincide in early evening hours. How can this be good for the animals? Now, here's what I'd like you to think about. You are considering introducing human disturbance in those same early evening hours that became so essential for these wildlife due to daytime disturbance. What do you suppose the additional impact of that human pressure will be on remaining wildlife ?2 1 don't think you've been given any factual scientific information by staff or consultant with which to make such a judgment. ' "Balancing conservation and recreation," MILAN MITROVICH, COURTNEY L. LARSON, KATIE BARROWS, MICHAEL BECK, AND RON UNGERIlnL://iinirirr7i �i:.a`;di;':av/IF lily ll..11diinll� ir.dw°Ilex"Ia�a`,u�irr7i� iin�lll� Z Well, according to the dismissive smart alecks at Rincon, we need not worry; the deer will run into a refugia and hide under a rock, or something. Yes, that is essentially how they dismissed wildlife disturbance concerns expressed by your constituents. Hopefully the council gets it better than the consultant. I am very concerned with this consultant's behavior. Your constituents contributed comments in good faith, and in return got arrogant consultant responses that were gotchas, put-downs, and twistings of meaning to turn the table on commenters. This behavior doesn't help the council evaluate anything. 1100 a idm ht _,.I A) „M Now, on to the main issue I wish to address — the construction of a false narrative of long- standing illegal CSLO night use to justify an "existing condition" argument for CEQA laxity instead of doing the robust sort of factual CEQA analysis of wildlife impacts your sharper constituents want from their city. In short, the city has relied on a privately -held spreadsheet' of raw and summary data to construct the "historic" night use story. This involves misuse of data never intended to be of adequate accuracy or quality for the purpose for which now being used. Following is how I think you can come to agree with me on this. Problems with the data's inaccuracy have been previously enumerated,' so here's a summary: 1. The data "totals" are double counts, counting a trip in and a trip out as 2 users rather than 1 round trip by one user. So the data "totals" are inflated by a factor of 2. 2. There was no pretext by the surveyors these "data" were to be considered anything more than an interesting snapshot in time. They are now being presented as having a level of profound accuracy, importance, definitiveness, and significance they were never intended to have. 3. The "counting" was done for a very short period of time, with no pretense the chosen time was representative. It was simply when it was convenient for this student project to be done. Honest effort to establish base "historic" night use would have measured use over numerous different extended time periods, seasons and years, to avoid distortion by temporary ups or downs that might occur during a single -season survey. 4. Counting was by automated EcoCounter, which is notoriously inaccurate. The surveyors (Riggs) in their text report estimated a 30% over -count. But their own test of EcoCounter versus manual count at Bishop's Peak suggests a far higher over -count: 52% gross over -count 15 Data presented by the city indicate there was no meter -vs. -manual test count at Cerro San Luis Obispo, so claiming accuracy for the EcoCounter's count alone as establishing a historic rate of night use at CSLO is unsupportable. Why is the EcoCounter so unreliable for this purpose? The instrument projects a beam and when that beam is interrupted, it counts a person. The presumption put forth by the city is all counts stem from humans breaking the beam. But beam break could be due to many other things: blowing vegetation or debris, wind, wildlife, etc. Professional users of this sort of equipment acknowledge its inaccuracies.6 In the CDFW articles supplied to the council professional users of sophisticated trail cameras, more sophisticated instruments than the EcoCounter, discuss the high percentage of "false triggers" they get, but note they have photos, so it's easy to sort the real from the false, and throw out the junk. In the city's CSLO data, however, we have no way to spot and eliminate junk readings, so the city and its CEQA consultant project "believe meM" rhetorical belligerence in place of verifiable fact . s Spreadsheet referred to by staff as Riggs et al., though it is not a part of the document that bears that title. 4 In my letter for council's Nov. 19 meeting. s I'm being kind here. Instead of using gross (total composite) counts, I could have cherry picked a specific time period when the EcoCounter did a 267% overcount compared to manual count. (EcoCounter count 11; manual count 3) 6 The professional qualifications of city planning students are debatable. This isn't intended as a dig, but as a factual reference point. How well do they understand the equipment and its quirks if doing a one-off school project? But I'd hasten to add, they weren't claiming any global significance for their data as the city is now doing. Put bluntly, the EcoCounter "data" are so inaccurate and impossible to verify that they are meaningless. (Remember, we're being told these "data" have scientific relevance, setting a base level of night-time human disturbance of wildlife. But the basis for any scientific claim is that it 1, be credible, and 2, be replicable. This "data" is neither.) A second set of data credibility problems — beyond EcoCounter issues — is the form and meaning of the data being manipulated by the city to establish "existing conditions" of night use. Mr. Hill has stated in emails the council and I have collectively received that the private Riggs Excel spreadsheet is the source for the claim of documented "historic" winter nighttime use on San Luis Mountain's averaging 65 persons per night during proposed "night use" hours. Here is the summary sheet of the spreadsheet he cites: Some things to note right off: A. Column B is the sum of Columns D and F; it is obvious then that Column B's "totals" are a double count of persons alleged to have been counted. Yet in the staff report and CEQA document this double count of 800 appears as if it is an actual count of individuals, not a double count. B. Night use is shown in Columns E and G, one "in" the other "out." The first thing to notice is that on an "average" night, 39 people entered who never left. That should be a huge red flag, and requires an explanation, which the city has not offered. I can think of two likely reasons for this discrepancy: • first, the EcoCounter numbers could be that erroneous, given the counter's lack of precision at Bishop's Peak for the purpose for which it is being touted as authoritative at CSLO; • or second, 44% of those entering at Fernandez Road really are disappearing, or more likely are exiting elsewhere, which blows a really big hole in the city's story they're only opening the 118 -acre natural reserve and causing no effect elsewhere on the mountain.' C. From the data in Columns E and G, can we deduce the vaunted number of 65 historic night users? No, but we can get close before going on to show the results are without merit. [Here's my calculation: From E and G, the sum of evening "after dark" trespassers is 89+50=139. But 13 of those are after 9 p.m., and it seems reasonable to also deduct half the 8-9 p.m. trespassers, or 4, for a total deduction of 17. So 139-17=122. This is a double count (in + out), so it must be divided by 2, which yields 61, which is close to 65, but not 65.$] D. Next, note the definition of "after dark:" everything outside 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. This radically overstates actual after dark hours because those times don't reflect accurate daylight hours for most of the dates measured. The EcoCounter operated from mid-December 2014 to March 31, 2015. Here is the range of sunrise and sunset times for that period: Dec. 21 (shortest day): Sunrise 7:06 a.m., Sunset 4:56 p.m. (standard time) March 31: Sunrise 6:49 a.m., Sunset 7:25 p.m. (daylight time) (Note that EcoCounter bridged both daylight and standard times, and its spreadsheet data appear unadjusted for the time change.) So "after dark" times in the city analysis are correct only for the shortest days of the year. By March 31, 2.5 of the claimed 3.5 "after dark" evening hours would actually be in daylight. Here's what this looks like in graphic format: If the city were really only opening its natural reserve, and not the mountain, we'd expect a whole string of mitigations, including: locked gates with cameras and/or personnel at the main CSLO trail's exit from the reserve and the lemon grove exit to the round -the -mountain trail; publicity saying ONLY the reserve is open and there is to be no night use of the rest of the mountain; enforcement at the other entries onto the mountain; etc. But we have heard nothing from the city regarding such mitigations. a Mr. Hill says 65 can be derived from the more detailed spreadsheet attached to the summary, but isn't there a problem if it cannot also be seen in the summary? Why would it not be evident there? Ae Aficr-Da.rk ".� ►✓C�(��agri� rG.lS�ty �-�G�S'i Gt�f � 9•�t< �. X Wa i 1 �� 31�� 54f an Ad-( 05C "rs P le-55 �u f tiny E. How do these corrections of city misrepresentations affect the number of illegal night users alleged as justification for "existing condition" exemption from doing wildlife harm studies? From the spreadsheet: • 43% of alleged illegal night use occurred in the 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. first hour of alleged "after dark" use. From the graphic above it can be seen that the majority of those "night use" hours were in daylight, and due to the one -hour -after -sunset rule NONE WERE ILLEGAL NIGHT USE. So that eliminates 43% of the claimed illegal night use right off. • An additional 28% of alleged illegal night use took place between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. Again, much of that was in daylight, more was within the one-hour rule, and less than half might have been illegitimate. Since in raw numbers we're talking 18 persons alleged to have been offenders during this time period, reducing that by 40% (reasonable reading of the graphic) renders potentially a maximum of 7 scofflaws for this time period. • From 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. there are a potential of 11 scofflaws (rounded up from 10.5). In most months this time is legitimately "after dark," but by March it's largely moved within the one- hour rule. • An estimate of users from 8 to 8:30 p.m. would be about half of those for the entire hour to 9 p.m, or 2 scofflaws. • So, to sum up, instead of 65 scofflaws, we have 7+11+2= 20 maximum. That's what the data say. F. But remember, the spreadsheet "data" are still unadjusted for some obvious inaccuracies. The big adjustment remaining to be made is for inaccuracy of the EcoCounter. Riggs indicates a gross 52% overcount at Bishop's Peak. Adjusting our 20 maximum night use scofflaw count accordingly yields a maximum of 9.6 (let's call it 10) scofflaws.' G. Conclusion: This evidence of how wrong the city's claims about night use shoots a fatally humongous hole in the city's story about "historic" night use of 65 persons. That claim by the city is a mere tall tale. It is quite possible the average nightly illegal use is essentially zero. And with the "evidence" it has, the city cannot prove otherwise. So why has the city dug in so deep, insisting on this make-believe story of 65 night users to justify the handing out of 65 permits per night (which will be but a fraction of actual night users, many of whom will enter the mountain other ways)? Well, thank you Rincon (the city's CEQA consultant) for stating the obvious so clearly. Rincon and the city view claiming an "existing condition" of 65 scofflaw night users makes the city's action lawsuit -proof because the current state of CEQA trial law defers to "existing conditions" claims. So the city's jumping through hoops to falsely assert an existing condition of 65 persons on the mountain nightly in "historic time" (a mere 3.5 months!) is about creating a get -out -of - jail -free card. It's not about any honest caring for wildlife. That these "existing conditions" are an untruthful construction seems not to matter to the city or Rincon. Constructing a dirty trick to be played in a court of law to make challenging an unreasonable and untruthful city action extremely difficult is apparently all that matters. The council might contemplate whether it approves of this sort of behavior on their behalf by those charged with carrying out council's programs. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 9 Or we could use more granular proofs of Bishop's Peak overcount, and reduce the maximum to about 5 or 6.