The Marina Master Plan Environmental Initial Study contains
one significant omission: It does not evaluate the impact of the
proposed non-motorized small craft access and launch facility
shown on the site plan.
This omission, however, is one of form more than substance,
because none of the critical details of this facility are
determined. The type of watercraft, method of launching, level
of vehicular access, configuration of boat storage, nature of
the public access programs supported, and overall scale of
operation are all left to a future planning effort. In addition, there may
be seasonal or geographic operating restrictions in accordance
with findings by the California Dept. of Fish and Game as it
examines the impact of non-motorized watercraft launched from
the small craft facility proposed for the Eastshore State Park
on the opposite side of the North Sailing Basin.
In view of the lack of a concrete proposal for this
facility, it would be appropriate to list the small boat
access point as a possible source of environmental concern,
but to defer further environmental analysis to the detail site
planing and programmatic development phase.
On the other hand, some general effects of non-motorized
boating on an urban waterfront are well established, and these
should be included:
1) Alternative to powerboating
The vast majority of boating activity in California
involves powerboats with two-stroke outboard motors.
These are among the most polluting devices still in use
anywhere in the State, and they are still perfectly legal
on the Berkeley Waterfront (we have already banned
powered personal watercraft (PWC, or "jetskis") within
1500 feet of the shoreline, but efforts to control two-stroke outboards have so far not been successful).
A waterfront plan that provides convenient facilities
for non-motorized watercraft will encourage the zero-emission
alternative to powerboats, and will reduce water pollution,
noise pollution and parking congestion caused by the much more
common ramp-launched boat-motor-trailer-SUV configuration.
2) On-site storage
Facilities for on-site storage of canoes, kayaks,
small sailboats, and other watercraft have an even
greater impact on reducing congestion and pollution on
the land side of the system, because users of boats
stored on-site do not have to
bring their own boats to the site with a large vehicle.
They are free to arrive by bicycle or public transit, and
can leave the SUV at home. Even if users continue to
drive to the site, when their equipment is stored on-site
they can arrive directly from work or other locations and
save many miles of East Bay driving.
3) Cooperative organizational structure
Cooperatively-owned boating equipment makes private
ownership unnecessary, and extends access to people who
do not have the discretionary resources to buy their own
boats. The co-op or publicly accessible club model has
already demonstrated great success as an access-enhancing
strategy in other parts of the Marina (Cal Sailing Club,
Bay Area Association of Disabled Sailors, Berkeley Yacht
Club) and extending similar opportunities to the North
Sailing Basin would add tremendous value to this
recreational resource.
There is an important distinction to made here between
commercial concessions offering boating equipment for rent
at market rates, and non-profit clubs and cooperatives
offering community access through free open house events and
low cost membership. While both can provide access for non
boat-owners, it is the clubs and co-ops that really
meet the goal of providing low cost recreational
opportunities for the most diverse range of users.
4) Regional air quality
Close-in water-borne recreational facilities have a
positive effect on regional air quality. For every family
using kayaks, windsurfers or small sailboats in the North
Sailing Basin, there is likely to be one less SUV hauling
recreational watercraft to the other side of
Bay Area or the other side of the State in search of
accessible water surface. It may not be a one-to-one
equation, but the general effect of supporting zero-emission recreational opportunities close to home is
certainly a positive pull.
5) Bird habitat
Before the water access facility can be planned in
detail, it will be important to objectively analyze the
impact on bird habitat in the North Sailing Basin.
The recently completed EIR for the Eastshore State
Park grapples with the same issue, concluding that it is
a technical determination that should be made by the
"appropriate resource agency" or in this case, the
California Department of Fish and Game.
However, the Eastshore State Park EIR draws some
preliminary conclusions that need to be examined again
before they are incorporated into subsequent planning
documents.
In section A5 of the document, we find:
"The observations of the EIR authors and substantial
scientific evidence indicate that non-motorized
watercraft can disturb waterfowl. Based on a review
of several thousand scientific journal articles and
books, Korschgen and Dahlgren (1992) identified four
categories of human disturbance to waterfowl. The
second most disruptive category was defined as
overwater movement with little noise (sailing,
windsurfing, rowing, and canoeing). Moreover, diving
ducks such as ruddy duck and lesser scaup, both of
which winter in large numbers on the North Basin,
are especially vulnerable to disturbance (Korschgen
and Dahlgren 1992)."
No other technical citations are given. If we look up the
survey report cited, we see that the "second most
disruptive category" is ranked not on the basis of the
degree of disruption, but simply on the basis of the
number of times the issue has been studied!
This paper is available online at:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/disturb/disturb.htm
Here is table 1 from the report, from which the
"second most disruptive" ranking is apparently drawn:
Table 1.
The number of times each item in the Subject Index is cited
Subject Number of citations
----------------------------------------------------------
Abatement/mitigation/alleviation 30
Aircraft
Airplanes 15
Helicopters 10
General 22
Anglers (See fishing)
Baiting/artificial feeding 7
Barges/shipping 9
Boating (boats, canoes, sculling, rowing, power,
airboats, sailing) 66
Breeding chronology 2
Brood breakup 14
Brood rearing 7
Cats 2
Development (industrial, petroleum, pollution,
urban, construction) 24
Dogs 6
Energetic costs (flight) 23
Family breakup 6
Farming 19
Feeding (natural) 52
Fishing
Commercial
General 2
Nets (trammel) 2
Trotlines 1
Lead weights (fishing or angler's) 2
Sport (angling) 50
Hazing (scaring) 12
Human activity/disturbance, general 58
Hunting
Family breakup 2
General 69
Investigator/research
Nest disturbance 55
Increased predation 31
Military 5
Molting 9
Native use 2
Nest (see Investigator/research-caused)
Disturbance 27
Success 14
Noise 22
Recreation
General 18
Water-based 27
Refuge (restricting trespass, sanctuary--see Abatement) 36
Research (see Investigator/research)
Roads (also see Development)
General 10
Traffic 11
"Sanded" dead 2
Shipping (see Barges/shipping)
Trains 1
Trapping
Furbearer 1
Waterfowl 5
Wariness (tameness, alert, tolerance distance) 43
We see that "hunting" is the most frequently cited, with
69 citations, and "boating" is in second place with 66.
But these are simply the number of times that the subject
is cited in the survey report. This metric has no direct
relationship to the degree of disruption, or the severity
of the effect on habitat. Any activity receiving more
study will automatically rank higher by this method of
measurement, regardless of the outcome of the study.
An even more egregious error is representing the
general "boating" category as representative of sailing,
windsurfing, rowing, and canoeing. The category "boating"
as used here includes all kinds of powerboats and
airboats. AIRBOATS! These are the
shallow-draft boats propelled by aircraft engines and
propellers, probably the noisiest and most disruptive
mode of transportation ever devised.
On looking at the actual research cited in this survey
(and there are 211 articles surveyed, not "thousands") it
is clear that most of the studies of bird disturbances by
boats involve powerboats. The few that study non-powered
vessels tend to concentrate on near-shore fishing
activity, which is generally concentrated in the most
ecologically active area of any body of water and causes
a much longer time of disturbance. And, when bird
disturbance by non-powered vessels is found to be
significant, it is usually on nesting behavior, not on
transitory stops along a migration route. The North
Sailing Basin is not a nesting area for the waterfowl
species of concern.
One can only conclude that the so-called data
implicating sailing, windsurfing, rowing, and canoeing in
an area like the North Sailing Basin is mostly
conjectural.
There is no question that a kayak and a duck cannot
occupy the same space at the same time. But the effect of
non motorized boating on wildlife needs to be quantified
by an objective, scientific process before we can use
this fact to make policy decisions.
If the North Sailing Basin were the only habitat in
the region, it would be appropriate to err on the side of
extreme caution. But this is not the case. Even within
the confines of the Eastshore State Park, preliminary
assessment by the environmental consultants on the ESP
planning team, as published in the Eastshore Sate Park
Resource Inventory, is that the North Sailing Basin is
the least important area for bird habitat and the most
appropriate water area for recreation. The Emeryville
Crescent and the Albany mudflats are far more valuable
habitats, and there are many thousands of acres in the
North Bay and South Bay that support the same species on
the same flyway.
The most important long-term environmental effect of
non-motorized boating in the North Sailing Basin is
sociological. Kayakers, windsurfers and sailors are the
people with the strongest personal stake in the continuing
health of San Francisco Bay. Preservation and protection of
the natural environment requires political will, and without
the constituency that these activities will help sustain, the
Bay and the shoreline will be in greater danger from
destructive developments.
There is no activity that is more "harmonious with the
natural setting" of the North Sailing Basin waterfront than
boating powered by wind and muscle. The positive environmental effects of providing access for these activities should be included in the Environmental Initial Study for the Marina
Master Plan.