AgdaPkt 2004-09-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/• � � � APPENDIX — REDWOOD SHORES When the FWS issued its 1996 biological opinion to the Corps for the public safety levee elevation, Bird Island was considered an isolated piece of a mosaic of rapidl�� disappearing rail and mouse habitat. This attitude can be read throughout the biological opiruon. The Service was concerned that existing habitat in the Bay was becoming fragmented, losing its tidal features and its micro-habitats. One can feel the crisis that this species will be lost when reading the biological opinion today. The City believes that the conditions underlying the rather draconian restricrions imposed in the biological opinion have changed. The development and restoration of the Ba.ir Island Complex will put Bird Island, the levee wall and the FWS resrrictions in their proper places. In the intervening years, development of the Bair Island Complex into the Don Edwards Wildlife refuge has proceeded and many of the assumptions that gave rise to the conditions imposed on Redwood City have proved to be of less impact or importance than once thought to be. The perspective that has driven the relationship between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Redwood City has changed. Where once there was a contentious relationship, now great unanimiry exists. Seen today, it is hard to believe that the actions dictated in the biological opinion presented a long-term solution. Citizen attitudes toward their environment and the goals of conservation generally cannot be defined with cha.in link fence or secured �vith locks. It is the view of the City that with knowledge, understanding and education comes respect for one's environment. With sensitivity and concern for the urban neighbors of an urban refuge come cooperation, fellowship and protection of federal reserves. Today, flotsam and jetsam from the Bay litters Bird Island and the Redwood City marsh. Citizens, completely denied accesses of a view of the Bay, may break down into two categories. The majority will grumble at the inconvenience and intemperance of the decisions and take another way. A small but reckless few will . break the fences, surmount the obstructions and treat that place with the same lack of concern they feel has been shown them as residents and visitors to this place. Although the Recovery Plan for the California Clapper Rail and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse does not allege domestic pets or human contact as a limiting factor in reco�rery, the biological opinion focused on it. In the sections of the opinion referring to humans and domestic pets the helping verb goes from "is-shall-will," when describing the effects of the "best science" of natural predation, to "may- should-could," when subjectively describing supposed urban effects. 23