Alameda Point Environmental Report

Zone the wildlife refuge “Open Space”

Below is the draft of a city council resolution that has been introduced to the council by councilmembers Stewart Chen and Tony Daysog. It is on the council agenda for 7 PM, Tuesday, February 19, 2013. The community is urged to attend and voice their opinion.

The refuge has been home, harbor, and safe haven for many species, even during use as a military base. As the property transitions to VA ownership, the protective status of “Open Space” and “Wildlife Refuge” should travel with it on into the future. It is a rare piece of earth on the Bay that should be available for nature to reclaim. Proper zoning will reflect the level of commitment we have toward environmental stewardship in an era of growing demands on ecosystems everywhere.

Draft – City Council Resolution

Resolution re-affirming support for creation of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point

Whereas, the 1996 Community Reuse Plan identifies the southern two-thirds of the Naval Air Station-Alameda airfield for preservation as a wildlife refuge;

Whereas, the 1996 Community Reuse Plan stipulates that this area “would remain as open space to provide for the preservation of wetlands, sensitive species, and regional open space uses”;

Whereas, the City of Alameda General Plan was amended in 2003 to add Chapter 9 on Alameda Point, which includes support and encouragement for funding and implementation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge;

Whereas, the General Plan amendment supports “a system of trails that provide public access to and within the Wildlife Refuge” that balances natural conservation with public access and education;

Whereas, the General Plan amendment supports the creation of education facilities and programs, similar to other conservation areas such as the Elsie D. Roemer Bird Sanctuary;

Whereas, the wildlife refuge is home to one of the most successful nesting sites in California for the endangered California Least Tern;

Whereas, Breakwater Island is part of the wildlife refuge vision in the 1996 Community Reuse Plan, and it is the only night roosting area of its kind in San Francisco Bay for California Brown Pelicans, which were only recently removed from the Endangered Species List;

Whereas, the wildlife refuge, and the entirety of Alameda Point and its adjacent waters, are subject to special restrictions for protection of the least terns by authority of the 2012 Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the responsible agency for enforcement of the Endangered Species Act;

Whereas, the 511-acre refuge area offers a rare and vast inner urban opportunity for public access and education, a respite and retreat from the built environment, introduction of native plant species, expansion of wetlands, and wildlife recovery and protection efforts;

Whereas, the Alameda Wildlife Refuge would complement the land uses contemplated for the mixed-use area of Alameda Point, as well as complementing the entire city and the Bay Area;

Whereas, numerous federal, state, and regional public agencies possess the experience and mission for collaboratively managing a wildlife conservation area;

Whereas, environmental cleanup and remediation will be completed by the Navy in compliance with federal and state environmental laws;

Whereas, ownership by the VA will ensure that potential environmental cleanup liabilities regarding the Site 2 landfill, and any other portion of the federal property, will be borne by the VA (unless retained by the Navy) regardless of the land uses;

Whereas, the wildlife refuge vision is compatible with, and complementary to, proposed plans for a VA clinic and columbarium;

Now be it therefore resolved:

The City Council of the City of Alameda re-affirms our commitment to and support for the creation of a wildlife conservation area known as the Alameda Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point;

And be it further resolved that the adjacent waters of the Alameda Point Channel, and Breakwater Island, are to be included in the management plan for the refuge;

And be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Alameda will support the zoning of the wildlife refuge property as “Open Space with a Refuge Overlay,” or similar conservation zoning designation, to promote the protection and implementation of the values and goals recited in this resolution.

Alameda Wildlife Refuge podcast

This interview with wildlife biologist Leora Feeney was done in 2008 as part of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture’s “Your Wetlands” series.

Click here, or on image below, to access the podcast.

The only updates are that the Loggerhead Shrikes are no longer seen nesting on the western shoreline following cleanup work that was performed. And the Harriers have not been seen nesting at Alameda Point in recent years.

The refuge remains a unique wildlife habitat that deserves permanent protection.

Navy could shut down groundwater treatment at housing site

The Navy often hears calls to increase its environmental cleanup effort. Now, the community and regulators are hearing a call from the Navy to eliminate one cleanup effort altogether.

North Housing area next to Island High School where benzene plume is located.

Since 2009, several acres of the area north of Bayport that includes the Shinsei Gardens affordable housing development, former Coast Guard and military housing, the closed Island High School, and the Woodstock Child Development Center have been undergoing groundwater treatment to eliminate hot spots of benzene and naphthalene vapors. Shinsei Gardens also included special building slab engineering in its design as an extra precaution against vapor intrusion. The Navy now says that its groundwater treatment system is unnecessary and should be shut down.

In a report issued in December 2012, the Navy said the underground vapor extraction system called biosparging is not making the area any safer for human habitation. Biosparging is a form of bioremediation that uses air and oxygen injections to stimulate the growth of naturally occurring bacteria, which break down toxics. In this case, the contamination is composed of waste material discharged from an Oakland coal gasification plant and an Alameda oil refinery that operated long before the area was filled in. The contamination layer has been dubbed the Marsh Crust.

The Navy’s report points to the initial studies in the area that showed no risk from vapors. The only justification for the remediation in the first place was the limited risk of contact with water through non-potable uses, since drinking water will always be supplied by East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Now the Navy says that even non-potable uses are impractical and off the table due to high levels of minerals such as salt. With no way of coming in contact with water containing benzene and naphthalene, the Navy decided to review the data for vapor exposure and concluded there is plenty of evidence to turn off the pumps. The biosparge system was designed to run for eight years in order to reach its cleanup goals.

Biosparging system for benzene and naphthalene vapors. White tanks are charcoal vapor filters.

Biosparge manifold for injecting oxygen.

The Navy’s December 2012 Technical Memorandum is seeking to amend the original cleanup decision — known as the Record of Decision (ROD) — for this cleanup area. They will need the concurrence of the regulatory agencies: the regional Water Board, state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But the EPA and DTSC are not ready to agree without further testing.

According to EPA’s Chris Lichens, “The Navy’s conclusions are not based on current data, site conditions, or investigation methods. Before proceeding with a ROD Amendment,” he said, “the agencies would like the Navy to collect additional data to verify that vapor intrusion would not present a significant risk in the absence of biosparging.” Lichens added, “Along those lines, EPA and DTSC jointly prepared recommendations for additional groundwater, soil vapor, and indoor air sampling and provided those recommendations to the Navy. The Navy has not yet agreed to collect additional data, although we are still discussing it with them,” he said.

Originally published in the Alameda Sun.

One of the groundwater treatment sites

North Housing. Benzene plume extends under lawn area, street, and housing in photo.

Color me pelican on a winter’s day at the Seaplane Lagoon

Alameda Point 2012 environmental cleanup review, and busy year ahead

Cleanup activity at Alameda Point in 2012 started where it left off in 2011 — at the Seaplane Lagoon. The northwest corner of the lagoon was the site of the second and final phase of lagoon dredging, which targeted sediment that had been contaminated near storm drain outfalls. With dredging completed by spring, the sight of Americas Cup racing yachts arriving at their temporary dock in the lagoon seemed to be a harbinger of the approaching end of the Superfund era at the Point.

Dredging northwest corner of Seaplane Lagoon

Just outside the Seaplane Lagoon, another dredging operation was started and finished at one of the maritime ship piers where the Cape Orlando had been docked. By November, the massive ship was back at dockside, hull lights glowing at night.

In one of the most complicated and contaminated areas to the east of the Seaplane Lagoon, cleanup work began at an area 30 feet below ground where a cleaning solvent used on aircraft parts had seeped into the groundwater. After driving a series of metal bars down to the contaminated area, the soil, groundwater, and solvent were heated to just below simmering by means of electricity. This turned the water and solvent into vapor, which was then vacuumed out into a filtering system through a series of pipes.

Heat treatment and vapor extraction - OU-2B — Heat treatment and vapor extraction – OU-2B

At the far end of Alameda Point on the northwest landfill, the Navy relied on chemicals, rather than heat, to do the cleanup on a small portion of the site. Dozens of hoses snaking around the site to the injection wells delivered an oxidizing mixture of neutralizing chemicals into a pocket of solvents. Without this remediation, the solvents had the potential to reach the Bay.

Injecting oxidizing chemical into solvent plume - Site 1. Navy photo. — Injecting oxidizing chemical into solvent plume – Site 1. Navy photo.

The year ends with a cloud of controversy over the Navy’s plan for leaving drain pipes under the old Naval Air Rework Facility — Building 5. Letters from both the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and the city call for the complete removal of any lines containing radium paint waste. The Navy ruled out a more costly alternative that would remove all the contaminated pipes. The city challenged this decision, in part, on the ground that the Navy’s cost estimates for a thorough job are inflated and have asked that they reconsider.

Also in Building 5, plans to remove above-ground radium contamination from floors, walls, and ceilings in the mezzanine area will get underway within weeks. This area is where aircraft dials and markers were painted with radium paint that provided visibility in the dark. A final scanning investigation to detect radium, using sophisticated equipment employed in the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, found dozens of pie-sized irregular areas where radium dust had embedded in the surfaces. This project will conclude two decades of scanning and radium removal efforts in Building 5 and other buildings. Around $50 million has already been spent replacing drain lines leading to the lagoon under the surrounding tarmac, and dredging the lagoon, due to the disposal of radium paint and other chemicals down storm drains.

Scanning a wall for radiological contamination. Navy photo.

2013

2013 will see the long-awaited final soil cover installed on the waste disposal site called Site 2 on the southwest corner of the wildlife refuge. It will be the largest engineering project since the runways were expanded in the 1950s, with over 200,000 cubic yards of clean soil being barged in from Decker Island in the Sacramento River. It will be seeded with California native flowering grasses selected by the RAB. This is the controversial dump that led the US Fish & Wildlife Service to balk at accepting the land for a wildlife refuge ten years ago. Since then, this dump has seen numerous reviews and a new plan that the US Environmental Protection Agency, regional Water Board, and state Department of Toxic Substances Control will be signing off on shortly.

Site 2 underground dump on southwest corner of Alameda Point.

2013 will end with commencement of a similar soil covering operation on the nearby landfill on the northwest corner of Alameda Point called Site 1. Both landfill areas will be safe for open space recreational activities when completed, but will be limited to hiking trails rather than mowed playing fields in order to maintain soil-stabilizing vegetation.

Northwest corner of Alameda Point where soil cover will be installed.

Annual Audubon Society bird count includes Alameda Point wildlife refuge

On December 16, from before dawn until dusk, hundreds of hardy volunteer birders trekked through parks, neighborhoods, wetlands, and woods to count birds during the Audubon Society’s annual Christmas Bird Count in the East Bay. In Alameda, three teams fanned out across the city. One team went to Alameda Point.

Carrying binoculars, spotting scopes, a clipboard, and bird reference books, bird watchers were participating in the annual Christmas Bird Count (CBC) organized by the Golden Gate Audubon Society. While the total number of birds tallied during the count helps to fill out the picture, the main goal of the day was to identify as many different species of bird as possible.

“This is not just about counting birds,” said Gary Langham, Audubon’s chief scientist. “Data from the Audubon Christmas Bird Count are at the heart of hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies and inform decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of the Interior, and the EPA. Because birds are early indicators of environmental threats to habitats we share, this is a vital survey of North America and, increasingly, the Western Hemisphere.”

The Alameda Point team was led by Alameda resident Leora Feeney, of Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge, and John Luther, one of the most experienced bird watchers in the state. Linda Vallee was responsible for tallying results on her clipboard list of bird species as they were reported.

John’s 50 years of observing birds in every California county is evident in his quick identifications and economy of movement with his spotting scope. “There’s a Common Loon…and…it just went under…there it is…turn around(as if speaking to the bird)…it’s… a Red-throated Loon,” he would say. “White-crowned Sparrows – two.”

One thing you learn about bird counting etiquette, if you’ve never been to one of these events, is that you should not chit chat with someone while they are staring intently through a scope. They could be trying to systematically count hundreds of birds by adding groups of 5 or 20 or 100 in their head as they keep landmark references in focus. At one stop, attention turned to Breakwater Island on the other side of the Alameda Point Channel where an unusually high number of California brown pelicans (for this time of year) were roosting amongst the cormorants. Leora counted 304 pelicans.

Continuing around the refuge, there were Burrowing Owls, Killdeer, a Horned Lark, a Peregrine Falcon perched on a fence, and a much smaller falcon not commonly seen around Alameda Point called a Merlin. Often the birds were in fast moving groups darting around, landing, skip, skip, pick, pick, and off they flew.

The biggest surprise came at the thick stand of willows at the north boundary of the refuge. There, just inside the branches was a Great Horned Owl, a bird that Leora said she had never seen in eight years of doing twice-monthly bird surveys on the refuge. Even more surprising was how approachable the owl was as it was being photographed, slowly turning its its head 180 degrees, appearing fearless.

After leaving the refuge, the team made other stops at the Seaplane Lagoon, the Inner Harbor on the south side, Breakwater Beach, and the neighborhood where the Big Whites are located. The Big Whites neighborhood has a very good variety of mature trees, ideal for bird watching.

The preliminary total for all species sighted in the Oakland count area on Sunday (the 15 mile circle that is centered at Lake Merritt and includes Alameda) was 177 species. According to GGAS Communications Director Ilana DeBare, “That is pretty much in line with a normal ‘good’ year. There were 29 teams total, with well over 100 participants.”

“Christmas Bird Counts combine many of the things Golden Gate Audubon stands for,” said GGAS Executive Director Mike Lynes. “It’s a fun day with a serious purpose. Everyday volunteer bird-watchers become citizen scientists, contributing data that will help inform future decisions about Bay Area bird life and habitat.” The San Francisco Christmas Bird Count is on December 27.

Spotted during Audubon Society's 2012 Christmas Bird Count. — Burrowing Owl spotted during Audubon Society’s 2012 Christmas Bird Count.

Burrowing Owl at shoreline embankment on Alameda Point wildlife refuge, Dec. 16, 2012.

Spotted on western shoreline during Dec. 16, 2012 Christmas Bird Count. — Merlin spotted on western shoreline during Dec. 16, 2012 Christmas Bird Count.

Spotted during Dec. 16, 2012 Christmas Bird Count. — Peregrine Falcon spotted on Alameda Point wildlife refuge during Christmas Bird Count 2012.

Great Horned Owl in willow tree on wildlife refuge at Alameda Point — Great Horned Owl in willow tree on Alameda Point wildlife refuge – Dec. 16, 2012.

Great Horned Owl spotted during December 16, 2012 Audubon Christmas Bird Count. — Great Horned Owl spotted during December 16, 2012 Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count.

Merlin - Dec. 16, 2012, Christmas Bird Count at Alameda Point wildlife refuge. — Merlin spotted during Christmas Bird Count at Alameda Point wildlife refuge.

Read background info on the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count here.

Follow reports about the Oakland and San Francisco Christmas Bird Counts on the Golden Gate Audubon Society’s website.

Read more about the Christmas Bird Count in Alameda on the Alameda Patch.

Navy and VA ignore economics, environment in killing Alameda National Wildlife Refuge

Once upon a time there was talk about a national wildlife refuge at Alameda Point. It was included in the reuse plan for Naval Air Station (NAS)-Alameda that was accepted by the Department of Defense. It was added to Alameda’s General Plan. The US Fish & Wildlife Service was poised to be the owner and caretaker of the refuge.

But after talks broke down between the Navy and US Fish & Wildlife Service nearly a decade ago, the Navy arbitrarily decided to give the land to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a clinic and columbarium. The VA is counting on the City of Alameda to give them an additional 70 acres of land early next year so that their clinic can be located further away from the nesting site of the endangered California least terns. This would bring the VA’s property to roughly 620 acres, even though they need only 110 acres.

The city should impose a condition on this land deal: Before the city changes its reuse plan footprint to accommodate the VA, the city should insist that the Navy place a conservation easement on the 511 acres that the VA does not need. A conservation easement would lay the groundwork for creation of a wildlife refuge or wildlife conservation area to be operated by another agency.

Golden Gate Audubon Society 1995 study examines economic value

The benefits of creating a wildlife refuge at Alameda Point go beyond environmental stewardship. They also include economic benefits to Alameda and the region. The Golden Gate Audubon Society (GGAS) understood the economic angle back in 1995 when they were advocating for creation of a wildlife refuge. To provide substance to their views, they commissioned a study by Robert Hrubes and Associates that was released in March of 1995. It’s called “The Potential Economic Benefits of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge: An Overview.” The conclusion of the 1995 study—that a wildlife refuge will complement economic development—still holds true today.

The study went on to extol the intersecting virtues of wildlife habitat protection and economic value. “While important in their own right, the benefits that would be generated by establishment of the wildlife refuge are not limited to habitat and species protection,” stated Hrubes and Associates. “[T]here are indeed potential economic benefits that could derive from a wildlife refuge/day-use recreation area located in the central Bay Area. That is, the wildlife refuge proposal is not an ‘either/or’ choice between environmental quality and economic development. Rather, it constitutes a land use that not only will take optimal advantage of the environmental attributes the site has to offer but also will generate economic activity that benefits the local region. Further, it will enhance the economic value for development of the remainder of the NAS.”

VA’s project requires further study of impacts

The current proposal for the VA to own and control the 511-acre refuge area next to their 110-acre medical clinic and columbarium makes it all but impossible for this area to become the urban wildlife oasis that it could be. The VA’s proposed project map makes this clear by wiping out the words “Wildlife Refuge” and replacing them with “VA Undeveloped Area.”

At this stage of the environmental review process, the only significant environmental requirement that has been imposed on the VA is that they provide predator management, housekeeping, and record-keeping for the California least terns during their four-and-a-half-month nesting season at Alameda Point from April to mid-August. This is because the Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service in the summer of 2012 focused only on one species – the least tern – due to its listing as an Endangered Species. It remains to be seen whether the VA and Navy will prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as typically required for a federal project of this size and scope. The National Environmental Policy Act provides for an impact report that is similar to California’s Environmental Impact Report. If the Navy and VA perform an EIS, they will then have to look at impacts to other species (such as the burrowing owl), habitat values, climate and traffic impacts, as well as identify alternative sites for all or part of their project.

However, based on public statements from the VA about their timeline for construction, it does not appear that they have any intention of doing a full EIS, and thus their environmental commitment will be limited. This will mean that rather than adding grasslands to perimeter areas that already have pockets of grasslands between runways and taxiways in order to divert hawks and other avian predators away from nesting terns, they will keep the refuge looking as much like a fenced-in stadium parking lot as possible (like it has been for the past decade). The pretext is that it removes habitat for predators, but in this case they would be torturing the concept by making the tern nesting site so conspicuous that it will invite predation. Virtually all of the least tern predation events have been from flying predators—like the peregrine falcons that come from miles away on the other side of Alameda.

The real reasons for maintaining the industrial look are to reduce maintenance and capital costs, and to exploit the paved areas for revenue-generating uses that don’t require construction. They have already said they will use the area for emergency preparedness training, disaster staging, and storage of supplies.

Over 180 different species of bird have been spotted on the refuge at one time or another. Some of the wetland area can easily be expanded and linked permanently to the Bay. Grasslands could be added. Instead, what we can expect to see added are auto driving events and RV shows.

Early in 2013, the Alameda city council will play a pivotal role on whether the VA is able to permanently kill the wildlife refuge vision. The city council must vote on an amendment to its no-cost conveyance deal with the Navy in order to allow the VA project to move forward. By their action, the city will decide whether the 1996 Community Reuse Plan for Alameda Point will be amended to remove the wildlife refuge as a goal, or if it remains.

Killing the wildlife refuge is not only a bad idea for the environment. It’s a bad idea for the economy.

Read more in the Conservation Action section of the Alameda Point Environmental Report.