Thanks for your excellent article on the subject of the burrowing owl mitigation on the plateau at the base of Buchanan St. All Albany residents should be proud that our city is one of the joint powers who are chipping in to re-establish a species on our waterfront. From a dump site to a bird habitat. How great is that!

Turning a dump site into a waterfront park takes time. After the racetrack sold the property to the park district, for a while the plateau was abandoned and many people from all around the region use it to run their dogs off leash. The bulb is also due in time to be incorporated into the shoreline park. In the end, some control of dogs will likely be required in parts of the park, and perhaps like the dog run in El Cerrito, a good portion will be set aside for dogs to continue to run free, within some limits. That seems reasonable.

Some people don’t like big dogs running up to them off leash. Look at those three St Bernards in the photo! No doubt these are docile and lovable pets. But if you’re walking alone on a secluded path and they come running toward you, even a fervent dog-lover may wonder what their intentions are. So let’s be reasonable. Parks are for everyone, not just off leash dog lovers.

And the burrowing owls used to be found on our waterfront. Mr Larson knows this, too. Because the plan for transferring the dump into parkland counted burrowing owls on our waterfront. In the Proposal for the Albany Portion of the Eastshore State Park, in 1995 burrowing owls were spotted on the waterfront. In fact, the cover of the proposal by the City of Albany includes a photo of a burrowing owl.

And a burrowing owl more recently was spotted over by the new ball fields on Gilman St. Again, this parcel was sold by the race track to become part of the shoreline park. If the mitigation was to occur there, then playing field would be lost. Instead, after years of compromise, the park district agreed to put the owl habitat on the plateau. Just what is it the Mr Larson would have us do? Tear up the new ball fields and start all over?

In time we should be confident that these issues will be worked out so that we all may enjoy the shoreline park on our waterfront. Dog owners, wildlife enthusiasts, and ball players alike.

If you read the fact sheet, you will see that the construction cost is $57,000, and the maintenance cost is $30,000. That’s why I wrote about $90,000 in total.

Linjun

Regarding the size of the burrowing owl pen, the narrative of the park district report does say 8.0 acres, but the drawing included with the distinct report still refers to 8.8 areas. I have not heard that the district has reduced this. I know that the Albany was having trouble getting GPS survey data for the site, so we may not know how big it is until they actually build it.

One more thing, the “$90,000 total” you referred to is actually just the construction cost. The park district wants an additional $30,000 for five years of maintenance and the consultant hired by the City is charging $14,000 for design and monitoring. So the total cost of the project is more than $130,000. I understand however that the construction costs may come in a bit lower than budgeted.

Finally, I don’t think that there is anything in the record to support your last statement that, “The burrows and fence will stay at the Plateau for at least five years. They would be removed if no owls pay visit to the land by then.” The five-page agreement between the City and the park district is remarkably unclear on this particular point. However, in he past, the park district has made statements that it would evaluate the suitability of the site as a habitat for other species. I think that this is park district speak for, “will leave the fence up, but we just won’t mow the grass as often!!”

Clay

Thanks a lot for the comment. I changed “endangered species” into “species of special concern” to make the description more accurate. The enclosed area was reduced from 8.8 acres to 8 acres as you can read in the fact sheet provided by the park district. As to the controversy over the Gillman Street habitat, I didn’t write about it because I think it’s not essential to the story. But it’s good that you provided detailed information on it in your comment.

Best,

Linjun

I believe that your article on the burrowing owl (BO) habitat contained a couple of errors. The BO is not an “endangered species.” It is listed in California as a “species of special concern.” California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) guidelines do recommend mitigation whenever a project impacts the BO. Critical here is a determination that the project site is being actively used by the owl. Migration stop-overs or brief refuge stops don’t constitute active use. That’s why a single sighting of an owl would not result in CDFG recommending mitigation. Berkeley conducted two nesting surveys (2004, 2005) at the sports field site and no owls were observed. A subsequent 2006 winter survey (after the Albany habitat was approved!) found one owl, but here it’s important to note that there was almost no evidence that the bird was actively using the site. The survey report indicated that there were very few signs of burrowing owl occupation (scat, pellets, and feathers) and in fact none was observed during the initial den search. Finally, a Spring 2007 survey again revealed no owls. All this suggests that the site was not being actively used by any owls.

There are other factors to be considered. The CDFG’s February 2004 Notice of Ruling denying a proposal to place the BO on the threatened or endangered species list, noted that the BO is basically completely extirpated from the Northern SF Bay Area. In effect, there’s almost no BO population to impact. It’s also appropriate to consider the Gillman sports fields in the context the entire East Shore State Park project. The park includes BO habitat enhancements at the Meadow (Phase I and II), and the Park General Plan calls for artificial owl burrows at the Albany Bulb. Taken together, I don’t think that there was any need to mitigate for the BO because of the spots fields.

You also slightly understated the size of the habitat in relation to Albany’s 20-acre plateau. The habitat will be 8.8 acres, but will include an additional two to three acre buffer around the site. As a result, Albany will be lose more than half of its recreational open space at the plateau.

I’m disappointed with the habitat. I don’t think that it was necessary. I don’t think that it will do anything for the owl. Others share my view. Last week, several signs critical of the habitat were placed on the constructions fence. The signs were quickly removed by park district staff, but Jill Posener managed to get pictures and these are posted on her blog site (http://jillposener.blogs.com/jill_rants_and_raves/2008/04/howling-in-prot.html).