 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Bulletin Board
A "DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH" could describe the steep, red guano-covered island jutting out of the Bay near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and now up for grabs at a price only millionaires can afford. Named for the reddish hue caused by the manganese in its rock and soil, Red Rock island falls under the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond (which own four acres zoned for open space, parks, and recreation), San Francisco (which has zoned its 1.5 acres for one residential unit per lot), and Marin County, which has jurisdiction over less than an acre zoned for agriculture. The island provides nesting grounds for double-crested cormorants, western gulls and black-crowned night herons, and brown pelicans have been seen roosting on it rocks. A consortium of environmental interests—including Cal Fish & Game, the National Audubon Society and the East Bay Regional Park District—recently offered $350,000 (through money from the Cape Mohican oil spill settlement) to acquire the rock as a wildlife refuge. But the private owners are looking for bigger bucks, something more in the $2-3 million dollar range.
FROGS IN A COAL MINE? Atrazine, a common weed killer sprayed on lawns and cornfields, can change young male frogs to hermaphrodite frogs, according to a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Although the EPA allows three parts per billion (ppb) of atrazine in drinking water, the study, headed by Tyrone Hayes at U.C. Berkeley, found that frogs were affected at concentrations as low as 0.1 ppb. As the amount of atrazine was increased, up to 20% of the developing frogs in the study showed more mutations, such as multiple sex organs, or both male and female organs. Some frogs developed small, feminized larnynxes. The research team concluded that atrazine causes cells to produce the enzyme aromatase, which converts testosterone to estrogen. But atrazine may affect more than frogs. In June, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition with the EPA asking the agency to take the chemical off the market because its leading manufacturer had not disclosed that 17 workers had developed prostate cancer. The EPA is in the process of drafting new rules for atrazine, and is expected to issue any changes later this summer.
HOW MUCH CYANIDE is too much? Current limits for discharging cyanide into San Francisco Bay need revision, say dischargers and staff of the S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The chronic standard for saltwater is now 1.0 ug/l, which is below the concentration at which cyanide is measurable, except by very specialized labs, notes the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Gail Chessler. She adds that even with maximum effort, dischargers would find it virtually impossible to meet the present limits. Board staff, meanwhile, say that there is no evidence of cyanide bioaccumulation in Bay flora or fauna, and that cyanide concentrations in Bay waters are generally less than half the chronic standard, because it rapidly degrades and vaporizes. Furthermore, the science supporting the existing standard is "soft", says the board's Lynn Suer, as it relies on data of unknown quality for only one East Coast crab species. The staff and dischargers recommend raising the chronic standard to 2.9 ug/l, a number developed by researchers in Washington State, who tested the toxicity of cyanide to four West Coast crab species. Their research indicates that 2.9 ug/l cyanide in saltwater is safe for aquatic life. The change is one of the amendments being considered for the Board's Basin Plan. The proposed amendment would update the national U.S. EPA standard, and if approved by the board, be applied on a regional basis. The board may take action in late summer or in the fall. If the new standard is adopted, EPA and U.S. Fish & Wildlife will conduct their own review. Contact: Lynn Suer (510)622-2422
BCDC RECENTLY REJECTED A CONTROVERSIAL PLAN by the Mirant Corp to build a once-through cooling system for its proposed Potrero Power Plant in San Francisco. The 570 megawatt plant would use up 228 million gallons of water per day. BCDC reasoned that the once-through cooling would not comply with the McAteer-Petris Act, which bans Bay fill when there are feasible alternatives. The vote was 19 – 0. The issue now moves on to the California Energy Commission. In order to overrule BCDC, the Energy Commission would have to find that the alternatives, such as building a land based cooling tower, would cause more environmental damage than the original proposal. This is considered highly unlikely; the CEC staff has recommended against the once-through system, saying damage to aquatic resources could not be mitigated and that alternatives could work. A staff report also notes that the National Marine Fisheries Service, Cal Fish & Game and the S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board have all "expressed clear opposition" to the once-through cooling.
NEW BAY HABITAT POLICIES. For the first time in 35 years, the S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission (BCDC) has updated its habitat related policies guiding permitting for Bay dredging, filling, shoreline development and habitat restoration. In a Bay Plan amendment approved this April, the Commission addresses new science and public priorities for baylands management (including the recommendations of the 100 scientists who crafted the 1999 Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report), and for the first time outlines policies for subtidal areas (open water and the Bay bottom) -- codifying the importance of the linkages between the uplands, marshes, mudflats and open waters in the Bay's tidal ecosystem. Also new to the Bay Plan are sections exploring BCDC's endangered species responsibilities; the need to conserve sensitive or unique subtidal areas such as eelgrass beds and sandy deep water; a requirement that in the review of proposed restoration projects the Commission be guided by the Habitat Goals (and a related policy saying it should restore around 65,000 diked acres to tidal action); the ability to permit a minor fill or dredging for the enhancement of fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife habitat if no other method is feasible; a requirement that proposed tidal and subtidal restoration projects consider potential impacts from sea level rise and the Bay's sediment deficit; and another requirement that non-native plants not be used in restoration projects and be avoided in public access landscape improvements, especially where they might easily spread to adjacent areas. According to the Commission's Katie Wood, "This process has been an amazing opportunity to integrate current scientific understanding of the Bay ecosystem into an important regional regulatory planning document." Contact: Katie Wood (415)352-3642 ARO
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project