Restoration alternatives for the largest such project on the Pacific Coast are being announced in December, after two years of planning by stakeholder groups and advisory panels. The South Bay Salt Ponds Project will describe broad goals and objectives for restoration, flood control management, and public access to the site that surrounds the southern end of San Francisco Bay.
One of the major questions being addressed is how much of the site should be restored tidal marsh and how much should be managed as ponds. According to Amy Hutzel, Project Manager for the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), "The key for the alternatives is that we are relying on adaptive management, so the alternatives are really a step toward increasing tidal habitats. As we implement each stage of the project we're going to have to see how it impacts the wildlife." Tidal marsh provides important habitat for fish and birds and acts as a much-needed filter for the Bay. Managed ponds provide important habitat for thousands of birds that migrate along the Pacific Flyway each year.
The project is part of an effort to restore 15,100 acres of former salt ponds in the South Bay and 1,400 acres of salt crystallizer ponds on the east side of the Napa River that were purchased by state and federal agencies in March 2003. According to the SCC, the restoration is one of the largest of its kind in the world and second in the US to the Florida Everglades restoration effort. Unlike most such projects, this is located in the heart of a major urban area.
Acquisition
The process began when Minneapolis-based agribusiness Cargill, Inc. decided to consolidate its operations and sell the salt-making rights and land in San Francisco's South Bay and Napa regions. Negotiations facilitated by Senator Dianne Feinstein led to a Framework Agreement for public acquisition in 2003 for $100 million.
The acquisition was a longtime goal of legislators, resource agencies and non-governmental organizations working to protect San Francisco Bay, says the SCC. Supporters of the Framework Agreement include San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Save The Bay, National Audubon Society, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, and many other agencies, organizations and individuals involved with the project. Under the agreement, Cargill is responsible for removing any hazardous waste that may exist and leaving the ponds in a condition that would allow them to be discharged to the Bay under a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The Project Management Team is comprised of the SCC, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD). A Memorandum of Understanding among the five agencies outlines roles and responsibilities. FWS and DFG own and manage the land and, with Cargill's technical assistance, conduct the interim stewardship for the salt ponds. SCVWD and ACFCWCD provide expertise on flood management related to the restoration. Hutzel says, "Currently, salt pond levees provide de facto flood protection for neighboring communities. As ponds are restored to tidal habitats, landside levees will need to be improved to provide protection from tidal flooding." The US Army Corps of Engineers has been engaged to assist with an integrated restoration and flood management plan for the South Bay shoreline.
Initial stewardship includes costs to optimize the available resources while long-term planning is underway. These include the cost to design, install, operate and maintain new water control structures to prevent the future accumulation of salts; levee maintenance; pumping costs; environmental permitting; restoration monitoring and collaboration.
According to the SCC, the funding for acquisition of the 16,500 acres of salt ponds and associated habitats in the South Bay and along the Napa River is committed, with $72 million from the State Wildlife Conservation Board, $8 million from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and $20 million from the Hewlett, Packard, and Moore Foundations and the Goldman Fund. Total estimated cost for acquisition plus five years of initial stewardship and restoration planning is $135 million.
The Coastal Conservancy's SF Bay Program leads the effort to organize a scientifically-sound restoration plan, to estimate costs of restoration, identify sources of funding, outline implementation schedules, prepare environmental documents and obtain initial federal, state and local permits for restoration.
The Project is subject to both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), laws that require projects to be reviewed for their potential environmental impacts.
Wetland Vitality
Lands bordering the Bay are essential to the health of the region's fish and wildlife populations. The largest and most biologically important such area on the Pacific Coast, the Bay-Delta Estuary serves as a stopping point for over one million birds that migrate along the Pacific Flyway, and provides food, shelter and breeding grounds for over 750 species. Two-thirds of California's salmon pass through the Bay-Delta each year.
Urban development, agricultural conversion, salt production, pollutant runoff and diverted freshwater flow have contributed to the loss of about 90 percent of Bay Area wetlands. Some 187,000 acres of the Bay's original tidal marsh were filled, dried out, or converted to salt ponds. By the turn of the 21st century, more than 29,000 acres of artificial salt pond evaporation ponds were actively maintained in the San Francisco Bay.
The consequence has been dramatic losses of fish and wildlife, decreased water quality, and increased turbidity in the Bay. Changes in the physical processes have increased dredging needs and flooding hazards. Over a dozen species have completely disappeared from the Bay-Delta estuary, including the sea otter and the California condor. There are 18 species in the Bay-Delta estuary designated by the federal or state government as endangered, threatened, or rare.
The wetland fragments that remain today continue to filter toxics and pollutants that enter the bay, but their effectiveness has been greatly diminished. It is estimated that each year 88 million pounds of pesticides and toxic chemicals drain into the Bay from roads, lawns, construction sites and abandoned mines.
According to the California Resources Agency, economic benefits of the wetlands include:
Restoration
The mission of the Napa Plant Site restoration also applies to the South Bay Salt Ponds restoration: to prepare a scientifically sound and publicly supportable restoration and public access plan that can begin to be implemented within five years. The overarching goal is restoring and enhancing wetlands and transitional habitats while providing wildlife-oriented public access and recreation.
The South Bay's waters are the saltiest of the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary and have been home to industrial salt production for over a century. While salt ponds change the Bay's hydrology, degrade water quality and impact tidal-marsh dependent species, they play a vital role by providing waterfowl and shorebird habitat. The salt ponds serve as a large, passive buffer between the heavily developed human communities of the South Bay and sensitive wildlife communities.
The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is the largest contiguous restoration opportunity on the West Coast. The project provides an opportunity to increase the Bay's tidal wetlands by 40 percent, preserve open space, and improve the physical, chemical and biological health of the SF Bay. Planning will be completed and a first phase project implemented in 2008.
Gail Schickele
For more information:
Steve Ritchie, California Coastal Conservancy, sritchie@scc.ca.gov, 510-286-1015
For schedules and maps, the Initial Stewardship Plan, the Initial Stewardship Status Report and the annual self monitoring activities prepared by the FWS and DFG go to the California State Coastal Conservancy's Salt Pond Restoration Project website at http://www.southbayrestoration.org
Concerned over adverse health effects of fine particulate matter (PM), the 2003 California legislature enacted SB 656 requiring the state Air Resources Board (CARB), together with local air pollution control and air quality management districts, to prepare a list of readily available, feasible, and cost-effective measures to reduce PM emissions.
Particulate matter consists of liquids and solid particles suspended in the ambient air. The particles vary widely in composition and come from many sources. PM includes soot from combustion sources such as motor vehicles, industrial facilities, power plants, wood burning, and cooking; dust from construction operations, agriculture, unpaved roads and trails, and stone crushing; and secondary PM resulting from the reaction in the atmosphere of precursor pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia. The particles may be toxic, or they may have toxic substances adhering to them.
Particles larger than 10 microns generally don't penetrate far when inhaled and may be expelled by coughing or sneezing. Fine PM, smaller than 10 microns (PM10), may be inhaled deep into the lungs where it may not be expelled and can remain. Acute symptoms caused by PM include breathing problems in people with respiratory disease, coughing, and wheezing. Long-term exposure to PM can cause chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, or cancer when the PM is from a toxic air contaminant. During periods of high PM levels in the air, increased numbers of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and premature deaths in people with respiratory and cardiac conditions have been recorded.
In the Bay Area, the principal sources of PM2.5 (PM 2.5 microns or less in diameter) have been found to be on- and off-road motor vehicles, wood burning and cooking, and secondary PM sources related to fuel combustion processes. The Community Air Risk Evaluation Program was begun last year to identify communities with high risks from air toxics, including gathering data on exposure to diesel exhaust.
Both CARB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have set health-based standards for PM; the state standards are more stringent than the federal. Both have set standards for both annual and 24-hour levels of PM10, and both have annual standards for PM2.5 . As yet, only the EPA has set a 24-hour standard for PM2.5. The Bay Area has attained the federal standards, but not the state standards. (See table below.)
Each local air quality agency that had not met state PM standards was required to review the the list of 103 rules, regulations, and programs identified under SB 656 and to identify those that applied to the sources of PM creating problems within its jurisdiction. The measures were screened for those which met certain criteria, including cost effectiveness. The agency could prioritize them for implementation, noting those that have already been adopted.
In preparing its SB 656 Implementation Schedule, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) determined that 62 of CARB's 103 measures to reduce PM had already been adopted, or the Air District had equivalent measures, and 15 either had no sources in the Bay Area, or would yield no significant reductions. Eight are included as control measures and ten as further study measures in the proposed 2005 Ozone Strategy. Ten wood burning measures have been identified for further study and evaluation.
Four measures are being proposed for the Implementation Schedule—amendments to two wood burning measures, a new rule to control emissions from stationary and portable internal combustion engines, and a new rule on commercial broiling operations. One of the wood burning measures is to lower the threshold of expected PM concentrations for issuing alerts in the winter-time "Spare the Air Tonight" program, which urges voluntary curtailment of driving and wood burning on cold nights with little air movement, when wood smoke and auto emissions are likely to linger at ground level. The other wood burning measure adds more outreach and resources to educate the public and to amend the existing model wood burning ordinance.
The Air District collaborates with local communities in programs offering rebates for turning in gas lawn mowers and buying electric ones, and programs such as the Santa Clara Woodstove Rebate Program to replace old, polluting stoves with EPA-certified devices.
The Air District also administers a variety of incentive programs that reduce motor vehicle emissions. The Carl Moyer Program provides funds for retrofitting or repowering diesel engines to make them cleaner than regulatory requirements. These grants are available for on- and off-road vehicles, locomotives, marine vessels, agricultural pumps, forklifts, airport ground support equipment, and auxiliary power units.
The Air District offers incentives to fleet owners to purchase cleaner vehicles through such programs as the Transportation Fund for Clean Air, the Low Emission School Bus Program, and the Refuse Truck Incentive program. The Vehicle Buy-back Program offers financial incentives to get older, inherently more polluting vehicles off the road.
As part of the SB 656 requirements, CARB must report to the California Legislature by January 1, 2009, on the actions taken to reduce PM emissions through adoption of the 103 measures on air district Implementation Schedules statewide, and make recommendations for further measures.
Adelia Sabiston
For more information: http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/pm/sb656_staff_report.pdf
| California Standard | Bay Area Status | National Standard | Bay Area Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM10 - Annual | 20 | Nonattainment | 50 | Attainment |
| PM10 - 24-hour | 50 | Nonattainment | 150 | Unclassified |
| PM2.5 - Annual | 12 | Nonattainment | 15 | Attainment |
| PM2.5 - 24-hour | Pending | - | 65 | Attainment |
Standards are for particulate matter in ambient air, expressed in micrograms per cubic meter. Most recent change in status was 11/23/2004.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently eased rules for Bay Area transit districts replacing buses after 2007, and tightened restrictions on idling trucks beginning in 2008.
A CARB decision five years ago required transit operators to choose one of two paths to meet more stringent air quality standards—begin purchasing alternative fuel vehicles right away, primarily natural gas buses, or plan to buy cleaner diesel buses beginning in 2007 while doing pilot projects such as fuel cell vehicles. (See April/May 2005 issue).
Most Bay Area transit agencies chose the diesel path, and have continued to buy diesel vehicles which are cleaner than in the past but do not meet CARB's 2007 standard of 0.2 grams of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The federal standard is 1.2 grams until 2010, when it will drop to 0.2 grams. Diesel engine manufacturers expect to meet the 0.2 gram standard in 2010, but not by 2007.
Natural gas engines are expected to meet the 2007 standard and one option for CARB was to require all operators to switch to natural gas. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission calculated that this option would have cost Bay Area transit districts $270 million over the next 10 years for buses which may not perform well under Bay Area conditions.
Holding the 2007 standards as set would have meant that diesel path districts would be unable to replace buses between 2007 and the date when engines met the standard, probably in 2010. CARB's compromise solution was to keep the 2007 standard in place, but allow districts to purchase diesel engines which do not meet the 2007 standards if a one-to-one match is made with an older vehicle which is retrofitted with a new cleaner engine.
In a new addition to vehicle idling rules (see August/September 2005 issue), CARB applied the 5-minute limit on idling to drivers resting in a sleeper cab. Previously, the 5-minute rule did not apply when the driver was resting unless the truck was within 100 feet of a home or school. For many older vehicles, this will require the owner to add extra equipment. CARB estimates that 3 percent of onroad diesel use is by trucks idling to maintain temperature and equipment in sleeper cabs.
Leslie Stewart
The need for affordable housing, at all income levels, is now being considered a critical problem for the region's economic future. Residents drawn by the Bay Area's quality of life are finding that the financial realities of paying for housing overshadow the attractions of the region. This is not a new issue, and tools and partners are available—Richard Rainey of US HUD recently commented that the Bay Area has the best group of nonprofit housing developers in the nation—but the housing problem persists.
As a regional issue, housing has been like many hopeful Bay Area residents, looking for the right home. Now, driven in part by a legislative mandate to work more closely together, three regional agencies have designed a common workplan focused on housing.
The workplan, titled "A Consolidated Work Program for Implementing and Refining the Bay Area's Smart Growth Vision", was developed by the staff of the regional Joint Policy Committee (JPC) which includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District), and staff from the three agencies. The JPC has approved the Consolidated Work Program and will coordinate its implementation.
The Consolidated Work Program is one of two components of a report to the Legislature required by SB 849 (Torlakson); the second component addresses administrative coordination of the agencies. It has been approved by the boards of ABAG and MTC and will be submitted to the state.
The Consolidated Work Program focuses on housing as a problem that is central to keeping the region's quality of life and that affects all other areas of regional planning—transportation and infrastructure, the environment, and the economy. Working on the issue will involve the three agencies on the JPC and also other agencies such as water districts, as well as local government, the private sector and public stakeholder groups. Many of these participants are already addressing some piece of the problem and will continue to do so. The Consolidated Work Program is intended to focus and coordinate existing and new efforts in a regional forum, with the goal of building additional housing units in a manner consistent with the regional Smart Growth Vision developed by five regional agencies in 2003.
A multi-agency approach may be the only way to make a significant impact on the region's housing needs. Although many people bemoan the high cost and short supply of housing, new housing faces a daunting mix of economic and social barriers. Speakers at the ABAG General Assembly at the end of October enumerated many of these. Primary among them is the high cost of land, because relatively few building sites are available due to urban growth boundaries, environmental considerations such as wetlands and slopes, and previous land uses such as industrial facilities. Neighborhood resistance to change often alters or reduces the type of units that are acceptable. Local jurisdictions may feel that housing is less desirable than commercial tax-generating uses, but when fees are imposed for roads, schools or parks so that housing "pays its way" the units become less affordable.
Unaffordable housing throughout the region sends residents far from their jobs in a search for a home they can afford, either renting or buying. Their less expensive housing may be affordable because it is built on newly developed land far from jobs and services, which forces residents onto streets and roads and adds to congestion and air pollution. Next to their new homes, the open areas they found attractive may already be targeted for more development. Transportation, air quality, open space and other services such as water are all stressed by meeting these housing needs. Still, among those purchasing for the first time, only 12 percent of Bay Area households have enough income to buy a median-priced home .
Preserving the region's current stock of affordable housing is a concern. Judith Christensen, a Daly City councilmember, worries about proposals for luxury homes in her city, where even housing considered affordable under federal guidelines is too expensive for most current residents.
At the bottom end of affordability, residents become chronically homeless, "couchsurfing" or living in transitional housing if they are lucky, on the streets and in shelters if they are not. Oakland councilmember Nancy Nadel listed a multitude of reasons for the current homeless situation, many directly related to housing affordability: a drop in federal housing funds, expiration of Section 8 housing vouchers, and infill driving squatters out of rundown neighborhoods as they "gentrify". Even if homeless programs provide services that enable people to get health care and jobs, lack of housing continues to be a problem.
And affordability is not the only consideration for buyers. Joanne Sanders, Sonoma City Council, commented that many young people see housing equity as an investment for financial security later in life. This means they are reluctant to buy subsidized units which don't help them to build equity and move up to market-rate housing.
Allocation and production of new housing units are therefore central tasks in the Consolidated Work Program developed by the regional agencies. ABAG already operates under a state mandate to allocate the region's need for housing units among cities and counties. The jurisdictions then incorporate these figures into the housing elements of their general plans. The next round of housing allocations, which will probably be synchronized with the next Regional Transportation Plan, will be based on the Smart Growth Vision. The Vision directs growth toward a compact network of neighborhoods, most of them in existing communities close to the Bay and along transit corridors.
In the Consolidated Work Program, housing allocation is part of the first stream of Core Tasks. Housing production is the second stream, because "the work also needs to assist in getting housing actually built", according to the staff report. Tasks include establishing priority areas for local specific-planning assistance, funding those specific plans, doing corridor planning, and convening a multi-sector task force on housing production to address barriers to creating actual units. The plan also envisions a corps of "extension agents" who would act as facilitators to assist local jurisdictions to accomplish the program. Some funding is already available from existing agency programs, and additional funding may be found through new state legislation.
Other elements of the work program are presented as complementary to the main housing tasks:
Monitoring and evaluating are also seen as important tasks.
As part of a report to the state legislature on how regional agencies can more effectively coordinate their resources, the Consolidated Work Program will probably be rated a success. Ultimately, its real success will be judged by how effectively it transforms the Smart Growth Vision into housing allocations, specific plans and new housing units that are consistent with the region's planning goals.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
ABAG housing needs - http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/
Consolidated Work Program - http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/Consolidated Regional Planning Work Program.pdf
Correction: In the article "Climate Protection Begins at Home" (October/November 2005 issue), Novato was incorrectly located in Sonoma County, not Marin. Credit goes to Novato Mayor Bernie Meyers for correcting our geography, as well as adding Fairfax and Marin County to our list of participants in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. Cloverdale and Healdsburg should have been included in the nine Sonoma County cities which have passed climate protection resolutions.
North Bay Rail EIR Available: The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District has released a draft Environmental Impact Report on implementation of passenger rail service on the existing rail right-of-way and construction of a bicycle-pedestrian pathway to provide alternative modes of transportation along the Highway 101 corridor in Sonoma and Marin Counties. The public comment period ends January 23, 2006, with public hearings on January 17th and 21st. For more information: http://www.sonomamarintrain.org or 415-492-2857.
As the Save the Bay movement grew and succeeded four decades ago, people began to pay attention to San Francisco Bay in new ways. They realized they were cut off from the shoreline along miles of the Bay. Railroads, landfills and industrial sites occupied many acres, and saltponds covered much of the Bay lands in the far north and south ends of the Bay.
The newly-created Bay Conservation and Development Commission set a new direction by requiring public access as a part of new development along the shoreline. At the same time, the economics of the Bay Area were changing. For example, Point Pinole in Contra Costa County had been used for many years as an explosives manufacturing facility. After it was sold to Bethlehem Steel, the large steel plant planned for the site was never built and the land became available for purchase by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). Today the 2000+ acre park offers miles of hiking trails and beach areas as well as picnicking, birdwatching and fishing.
Together, the public access policies and the new opportunities to acquire land for public use along the bayshore have resulted in today's extensive stretches of public waterfront. In the East Bay, EBRPD owns or administers shoreline parks and beaches from Hayward to the Antioch Bridge.
The one constant about the shoreline parks is their view of the water, whether it is the Bay or the Delta. Otherwise, they vary widely, although all allow fishing and most offer opportunities to walk or bicycle, and picnic spots.
Robert W. Crown Memorial State Beach in Alameda is one of the oldest shoreline parks with a colorful history as a beach resort beginning in the 1880s. In 1957 it was acquired by the state, and EBRPD began managing it in the 1960s. Today it offers a marine reserve and interpretive center, a bird refuge, and an annual sandcastle contest on one section of its 2.5-mile sandy swimming beach. Nearby, in Oakland's busy port area, the new Middle Harbor Park developed by the Port of Oakland and managed by EBRPD provides close-up views of shipping activity, live performances in the park's amphitheater, and fishing access.
Marsh areas, such as those at Hayward Regional Shoreline, Martinez Regional Shoreline and Martin Luther King Jr Shoreline Park in Oakland, are a delight to birdwatchers but most are off-limits to dogs. On the other hand, Point Isabel Park in Richmond is a dog-loving park, with concessions providing dog snacks and dog-washing services.
Miller-Knox Regional Shoreline in Richmond and Carquinez Straits Regional Shoreline in Crockett and Martinez climb the hills above the shoreline to offer superb views to hikers. The windy slopes at Miller-Knox are considered excellent for flying kites. Kite flyers may also join fishers at the Antioch/Oakley Regional Shoreline with its 24-hour access fishing pier built on old bridge foundations.
Eastshore State Park is one of the most visible shoreline parks. The 8.5 mile park, which stretches from Oakland to Richmond along I-80, was the result of a 20-year battle by citizens to preserve what was seen in the 1960s as a barren stretch of mudflats good only for building oddball driftwood sculptures or filling with garbage. In a complex partnership between the state of California, EBRPD, and neighboring jurisdictions, the park is being developed piece by piece, beginning with trail access. The Berkeley Meadow Habitat Restoration, a project to improve public access and eological habitats, is now complete and public trails should be open soon. Recreation use and access will ultimately be coordinated with facilities already in place such as the Berkeley Marina and other adjacent city parks.
While reaching the shoreline may still be a bit of an adventure, following pathways or roads through long-established industrial or residential neighborhoods, many areas which were once totally inaccessible to the public are now regularly used for recreation. In the East Bay, the parks owned or administered by EBRPD provide miles of shoreline habitat for wildlife and acres of space for people to enjoy through casual visits and scheduled events. Many other state and local parks in the rest of the Bay Area—for example, China Camp, Coyote Point and Palo Alto Baylands—as well as wildlife refuges, such as Don Edwards in the South Bay, serve this function for large numbers of other visitors each year.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
A list of EBRPD parks is at http://www.ebparks.org/parks.htm
Another option for shoreline access is the Bay Trail. More information is at http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/