...but we'll do what's best for the pelicans
By Andrew Christie, Chapter Director
The Tribune tossed the Sierra Club a brickbat today for filing an appeal of the Harbor Terrace Project with the California Coastal Commission.
At issue is the question of whether Harbor Terrace, as a magnet for coastal tourism in Avila Beach, will bring more people onto the sport fishing boats that put out into Avila Bay and surrounding waters, and, on return, deposit their passengers next to the only place in town where they can clean their catch, the Harford Pier fish cleaning station. Due to the design of the station, pelicans, which normally eat small, soft-boned fish such as sardines and anchovies, go after and attempt to swallow large, bony carcasses tossed to them or dropped into the water. The discharge of fish waste directly into the water also results in the contamination of birds with fish oils, which has the same effect on waterfowl as an oil slick, destroying the insulation of their feathers, leaving them vulnerable to hypothermia.
The potential of the Harbor Terrace project to increase the use of the fish cleaning station was not analyzed or considered in any way in the project’s Environmental Impact Report, nor did the County address it when we brought it up in the course of the appeal of Harbor Terrace to the Board of Supervisors and pointed out that the increased number of tourists at Harbor Terrace was likely to increase traffic – and the problems – at the fish cleaning station.
The Tribune, for reasons they don’t share, thinks the idea that increased coastal recreational tourism at Harbor Terrace will lead to increased use of the fish cleaning station is a “stretch” and they command that we “leave Harbor Terrace out of it.”
We’re happy to clear up a few points for the Tribune’s editorial board:
No, improperly designed fish cleaning stations are not “suspected of posing a threat to pelicans and other wildlife.” They do pose a threat. Fish cleaning stations in Crescent City were determined to be causing “a wildlife management crisis in northern California harbors,” per a report by Eco Logic on brown pelicans and fish waste handling in 2012. The Bird Ally X report Reducing Injury to Brown Pelicans in Northern California Harbors affirmed that conclusion. The Tribune’s choice of language such as “suspected of posing a threat” and “some say it’s a risky practice” looks like an attempt to deflect the facts.
And no, the Sierra Club would not “like to clamp down” on other “attractions and activities” that may be contributing to the current level of use of the Harford Pier fish cleaning station. Existing activities are what is known as the “environmental baseline” and don’t require a Coastal Development Permit. Such a permit is only required by new development, which must evaluate and mitigate potential additional impacts on coastal resources. In this case, we’re seeking a permit condition that would require the Port San Luis Harbor Commission to fully fund and fix the problem with all deliberate speed.
The Sierra Club does not withdraw an appeal based on tossed brickbats. In this case, we would do so only if we become satisfied that the goal – protection of marine wildlife from the harms currently being inflicted by the fish cleaning station – can be achieved by other proposed measures.
Since we filed the appeal – and, doubtless, because we did -- the Port San Luis Harbor Commission has notably accelerated the pace of short-term protective measures such as chicken wire installed on two sides of the cleaning station. A “sleeve” extension of the drain pipe was a nice try, but at low tide it still hangs a good four feet above the surface of the water and hungry pelicans still park themselves under it, where fish oil still rains down on them.
On July 28, the Harbor Commission will be considering a draft resolution and a matrix of potential short and long-term actions to address the multiple issues at the fish cleaning station. If we deem the outcome of that process sufficient to resolve the problem, we will withdraw our appeal. If we don’t, we won’t.