Golden Eagles
Golden Eagle (Copyrighted photo, printed with permission by Brad Weinert)
Golden Eagle (Copyrighted photo, printed with permission by Brad Weinert)
Sunrise Powerlink =
Golden Eagle Mortality
The Environmental Impact Report for the Sunrise Powerlink, in no uncertain terms, states that this project will result in the mortality of Golden Eagles.
Quoting from the EIR, “The Golden Eagle is a highly sensitive species in San Diego County because of its high rate of decline.” (Unitt, 2004). San Diego County’s eagle population has dropped from an estimated 108 pairs at the beginning of the 20th century to about 53 pairs at the century’s end….” (Unitt, 2004). Currently, there are approximately 46 pairs of golden eagles in San Diego County (Bittner, 2007)”.
The USFS has sought to protect these birds of prey, even advocating restrictions on public access in areas where there are known nesting pairs. Ironcially, one of those routes they sought to restrict is right next to where the Sunrise Powerlink has been approved to be built, in the area of El Cajon Mountain. See this link to the article from the San-Diego Union Tribune titled, “Shield for raptors stirs rancor“. This article also has a link to a USFS survey which confirms a nesting pair of Golden Eagles on El Cajon Mountain as of January 2009; right next to the route of the Sunrise Powerlink.
(Note the USFS still needs to approve this route; so your vigorous involvement is urgent – see Email contacts under the Action link for the USFS).
You can also see page 131 of the final environmental impact report for the Sunrise Powerlink Project at this link http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/sunrise/feir/D02%20Biology.pdf), which unequivocally acknowledges that this Powerlink will result in the loss of Golden Eagles in our county.
The following is taken directly from the final EIR.
Impact B-7H: Direct or indirect loss of golden eagle or direct loss of habitat (Class I for nests within 4,000 feet; Class II in existing transmission corridor)
The golden eagle is a highly sensitive species in San Diego County because of its high rate of decline (Unitt, 2004). “San Diego County’s eagle population has dropped from an estimated 108 pairs at the beginning of the 20th century to about 53 pairs at the century’s end….” (Unitt, 2004). Currently, there are approximately 46 pairs of golden eagles in San Diego County (Bittner, 2007). Golden eagles are large
birds of prey found primarily in the West and across Canada and Alaska. Most pairs nest on cliff ledges (some in trees on steep slopes) and hunt in nearby grassland, sage scrub, or open chaparral. A single pair can have several nest sites in an area and may rotate nests in different years.
The golden eagle is very sensitive to human activity, especially in the vicinity of its nesting area(s), and even distant construction activity (or maintenance activity; see Section D.2.16, Impact B-12) could cause abandonment of a nest, subsequent reproductive failure, and continuing decline of the species. These impacts would be significant according to Significance Criteria 1.e., 1.f., 1.g, and 1.h. Significance Criterion 1.e. states that the Proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on the breeding success of the golden eagle. Significance Criterion 1.f. states that the Proposed Project would directly or indirectly cause the mortality of a special status species. Significance Criterion 1.g. states that the Proposed Project would result in the abandonment of migratory bird nests and/or eggs. Significance Criterion 1.h. states that the Proposed Project would take golden eagles, eagle eggs, or any part of an eagle.
Human activity within 4,000 feet of nest site is considered significant and not to less than significant levels (Class I), especially if there is direct line-of-sight between the nest site and the human activity, or if the human activity occurs above the nest site in elevation (Bittner, 2007). Exceptions to this are if the activity within 4,000 feet of the nest site (without direct line-of-sight and activity is below the nest site) occurs where there is already an existing disturbance such as a highly utilized road or utility corridor with existing large structures, or if the project is underground (Bittner, 2007).
Transmission lines can also cause "large birds feathers to ignite. causing fires." This is also stated in the EIR. (Copyrighted photo, printed with permission by Brad Weinert)
mitigable
There are four golden eagle nest areas that would be affected by the Proposed Project. The specific locations of these nest areas are not disclosed in this EIR/EIS, nor are the Proposed Project MPs within 4,000 feet of the nest areas in order to protect the golden eagle. (Editor note: this statement was made BEFORE they included the route in front of El Cajon Mountain, which deifnitely inlcudes a nesting pair closer than 4,000 feet)
Per the EIR, “One of these nest areas occurs less than 4,000 feet from the Proposed Project route in the Anza-Borrego Link, and there is direct line-of-sight between this nest area and the Proposed Project”. (Editor note: If they had done their homework, they would have identified a second pair in El Monte Valley/El Cajon Mtn). Per the EIR- Impacts to this eagle pair would be significant and not mitigable to less than significant levels (Class I) because of the distance between the nest area and the project (less than 4,000 feet) and the direct line-of-sight that would occur.
Other Raptors at Risk too
Contributed with permission of Thomas N. Stephan, President, California Raptor Advancement Group or C.R.A.G.
Thomas Stephan is the President of the California Raptor Advancement Group. Stephan explained to one our participants that Eagle habitat consists of two different types of topography: a vertical environment with a commanding view of the foraging habitat below. These are usually cliffs and grasslands, respectively. Stephan explains that in the case in the El Monte Valley in Lakeside (which is where a section of the route is scheduled to go), if poles are erected in the valley or anywhere in view of the valley, the Eagles WILL use them to hunt from. “This will invariably electrocute them”, states Stephan. Stephan points to the recent San Diego Union Tribune newspaper article. In this article the Company’s’ power lines were described by SDG&E to have started hundreds of fires. SDG&E then listed the causes of those outages. Second on the list of causes were “birds”. What kind of birds? Birds with a wingspan big enough to cross the phases of a KV line”, says Stephan. The grey cylinder “transformer” cans are a real hazard as well. Stephan states that SDG&E has electrocuted thousands of wild raptors, three of Stephan’s falconry birds and never mitigated a dime for it, all in the name of profit. “They will kill the El Monte Valley’s eagles too if allowed to proceed”, warns Stephan.
For more information please visit the North American Falconers Associations’ website and order the DVD “Raptors at Risk” (not for the squeemish).
Please write to the Wildlife Research Institute regarding the impact on Golden Eagles in San Diego County. They have a contact form available here: http://www.wildlife-research.org/index.php?name=ContactPro.
This group works closely with the USFS concerning eagle habitat.
At one point the U.S. Forest Service was seeking comment on its proposal to protect golden eagles and prairie falcons in the Cleveland National Forest.
Visit ww.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland /projects/projects/seasonal-closures. I have contacted Kristen Winter of the USFS and she said the Forest has been working with the BLM and the county on “protective measures”. It is important that we show our support to the USFS by asking them to perform a full environmental review and have local hearings before making their decision. Emails should go to Will Metz.
Golden Eagles Confirmed on El Cajon Mountain (El Cap)
As recent as January 2009 the nesting pair of Golden Eagles was confirmed along the route of the Sunrise Powerlink…. see
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/
I called the USFS today, and learned that this pair was NOT noted in the EIR and EIS because “the EIR and EIS was never completed for the southern route, so they are doing surveys for a supplementary report now”.
The USFS will be making their decision on the approval of the route through the Cleveland National Forest sometime this summer. Please send your letters to Will Metz of the US Forest service asking them to perform a full environmental review and have local hearings prior to making a decision.
There was a full NEPA public notification, beginning in December of 2006, public open houses , public comment period, and an Environmental Assessment performed on Eagles in conjunction with rock climbing impacts. Bear with me a minute while I elaborate on Eagle Peak for the sake of demonstration.
Some climbers in early April of 2006 were spotted and filmed using hammer drills to construct permanent protection onto the face of Eagle Peak. Eagle Peak is an inventoried rareII area. At least one web site said that the bolt placing was at least back to 2003 (which you will recall was after a little fire and during a little forest closure) This means no construction or development in these types of designations; but many many bolts were placed over serveral years. Subsequently there were “collaborative meetings ” held with the forest Service and somehow chosen or who knows : “stakeholders” to determine the dynamics of managing visitors and climbers in gorgeous eagle nesting areas, at least 4 specific areas. (Weather the same rock climbers or different ones from above for the sake of this point is irrelevant. ) They determined on December 18, of 2008 that since no eagles had nested on Eagle Peak in 5 years (2008-5=2003? ) that they would not have to close the peak for rock climbers. AS it turns out, the Migratory Bird order also protects other raptures including Prairie Falcons which resulted in an “advisory ” closure for Eagle Peak. What I point out is two things. The minutes of the December 18 meeting does not list ANY women, yet several woman (including Me) have been on Eagle Peak a lot to observe and document and report on various circumstances of the mountain over the last decade, while some of the “stakeholders ” had not climbed the peak at all. Further ANY US citizen is a stakeholder in the Forest and we already had a great collaborative in the existing full NEPA process that had already been conducted. –my opinion at least. It would be an understatement to say I’m extremely dissapointed in the way this went down. In my experience, the Forest generally has demonstrated far wiser moments. So please tell the FS that the old public meetings may be difficult at times but very much appreciated and much more comprehensive. (to say the least) They should not (apparently at least) turn away from all the comments on the Eagles that had already been made at those meetings, though other than my own I have no idea what consensus they represent. Presumably the gender omission on decision day, was some fluke of nature, but if it proves otherwise, then we have a very different issue to contend with: There is much testimony and commenting that in the event, that it turns out that assumptions were perceived about the relevant importance of female input, would potentially require considerable review including ALL COMMENTS MADE BY WOMEN ON THE POWER LINE AND OTHER FOREST ISSUES(?) Does this imply and raise concern that potential impacts reported to the forest service now and in the past comprising their assessment of the southern route were overlooked or marginalized, because they represented female observation and perspective? I don’t know if this is good or bad. I’m just blown away. When and if I cool off maybe I’ll have a rational opinion about this one, -maybe not!