Bay Bridge
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:01:42 -0800
From: Lillian Fujii
Several weeks ago, Larry Tunstall posted information about Caltrans' environmental report on the Bay Bridge project. This post is to let you know what Golden Gate Audubon has been doing on that subject if anyone is interested. Arthur Feinstein, GGAS Exec. Director, has been following that project as well as one can given numerous other issues (e.g., Gateway, Alameda Refuge, Prop 4) that needed immediate attention. Previously, Arthur commented on the project's impacts on wildlife and habitat, including nesting Double-crested Cormorants, mudflats, and the eel grass beds. In response (although others could have submitted similar comments but I don't know), Cal-trans is proposing to construct nesting platforms for the cormorants, mitigate 3 to 1 a small segment of the eel grass bed that will be removed, and as Larry pointed out, a park is proposed. A portion of the park will be set aside as a preserve area for shorebirds, all of which GGAS supports. Just in time to meet the cut-off, Arthur sent off another comment letter. One of his requests is to mitigate the eel grass bed 10 to 1, because eel grass replacement mitigation projects have not had a great deal of success in the past. Caltrans may or may not agree to these additional requests, but Caltrans did respond quite positively to earlier GGAS's comments.
I apologize for the tardiness of this post, but I wanted to touch bases with Arthur first.
The presence of the eel grass was a surprise to me. I find it interesting as Joe Morlan has stated numerous times that the base of the east span of the Bay Bridge is one of the best places in the Bay to see Common Tern in the fall, as well as numerous other birds. (Joe, please correct if my recollection is bad in this regard.)
One final note - yesterday, there was a male Bufflehead in molt in the large pond at Aquatic Park in Berkeley. None of us had ever seen a male Bufflehead in that stage of molt before, so it may be of interest. Happy birding.
Lillian Fujii
Original Message Next Reply Subject List
Re: Bay Bridge
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:17:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Rauch
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Lillian T. Fujii wrote, in part:
..., Cal-trans is proposing to construct nesting platforms for the cormorants, mitigate 3 to 1 a small segment of the eel grass bed that will be removed, ... Just in time to meet the cut-off, Arthur sent off another comment letter. One of his requests is to mitigate the eel grass bed 10 to 1, because eel grass replacement mitigation projects have not had a great deal of success in the past.
I'm not sure I understand what the GGAS proposal is, and being a non-fan of mitigation (and even more insidious inventions like Habitat Conservation Plans!), I wonder...
1. Is the mitigation to be nearby, or "somewhere" in the Bay or elsewhere?
2. Is this a "gentlemen's understanding" that if a 10:1 ratio is specified, and a 3:1 ratio is at some point achieved, then no one from GGAS will grouse if CalTrans abandons further efforts to reach the 10:1 goal? (I mean... if 3:1 is an implicitly ok mitigation goal, but you don't think it's possible, or that it is very iffy, to achieve it, what is the point of specifying an even more elusive goal?)
3. Is this just "feel good" talk on a grander scale? I.e., if mitigation for lost eel grass beds is very risky, but the bridge-building project must proceed with minimal "interference" (delays, controversy, etc) from the likes of environmentalists, then perhaps "10:1" sounds better than "3:1", but has no more substance to it. The enviros quiet down - satisfied that they got agreement, and the bridge builders quietly move on to the next stage - satisfied that they mollified the enviros.
Rather than increasing what seemed to be an acceptable ratio, 3:1, why not really put the screws to them, unlike most mitigation commitments do, and insist that a 3:1 ratio actually must be achieved no matter how much it costs nor how long it takes and that the effort to achieve this ratio must proceed at a pace of no less than $X/Year (to show good faith effort is being expended)? ---yeah, I know, unrealistic; no bridge builder/politician would buy into such an agreement. So, we get alternative mitigation "agreements" that basically mean little to nothing.
(If this topic doesn't fit the EBB mission [Larry?], then perhaps respondents would be willing to move the discussion to sfbay-general@lists.sierraclub.org [the only general (i.e., more than birds) Bay Area environmental discussion list that I know of, even though its purpose is to serve Sierra Club sfbay chapter member interests]?)
Peter