April 27, 2026
Liza McNulty, PE, Project Manager
Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department
2180 Milvia Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Via Email: lmcnulty@berkeleyca.gov
Re: Berkeley Waterfront Transportation Pier Ferry Project DEIR State Clearing House #2025040995
Dear Ms. McNulty:
The Sierra Club values the health of San Francisco Bay, its resources and its communities in the face of sea level rise (“SLR”) and appreciates the opportunity to respond to the draft EIR for the above-referenced project (“the project”).
Our primary concern is what we see as an overdependence upon the 2003 Programmatic EIR (2003 FEIR, CEQA No. 2001112048). Any EIR that is 23 years old raises the problem of outdated information. This is especially so for EIRs prepared for sites that are experiencing SLR. As you will see below, there have been many new studies that address SLR as well as new studies on issues such as ferry impacts to diving ducks, and the unexpected potential for wave energy to impact shorelines distant from the specific shoreline in question.
We address these issues and others below in hopes that the DEIR will be amended to address these issues and provide appropriate mitigations for any identified impacts.
Potential Impacts on the Endangered California Least Tern
The Draft EIR states in section 3.3-41 that the California least tern (“CLT”) is "not expected to occur within the project site, nest in the vicinity, or to be affected by the project". The Appendix states: "There are no known occurrences within five miles, suitable colonial breeding sites are not present, and the Project site is largely developed and disturbed by recreational use."
A perusal of EBird will reveal a number of sightings of CLTs in the project area in the last year. The DEIR should acknowledge their presence. While the CLT’s closest breeding site is at Alameda Point, it is quite possible that the terns are looking for food (small fish) in the project area. Will the frequent ferry service be an impediment to such feeding activities? The DEIR should consider these issues.
Potential Impacts to Diving Ducks (Scaup and Scoter)
Attached, please find several documents discussing potential impacts of ferries on Bay diving duck populations. These duck populations have been experiencing significant population declines in the Bay as illustrated in these documents. The SF Bay Joint Venture “San Francisco Bay State of the Birds 2025” publication also makes this point. That study shows that diving duck populations have significantly declined in the North and Central Bays, both sites of active ferry service, while the South Bay, with little or no ferry service, has seen no significant declines.
The studies on ferry impacts to diving ducks makes it clear that ferry service already impacts significant amounts of diving duck habitat. This new ferry service, with a proposed high frequency of service, may have similar impacts especially since the studies showed that the ducks abandon habitats when there is frequent service. Since these are rapidly declining species the DEIR should analyze this issue and suggest appropriate mitigations.
Potential Impacts of New Breakwater
The DEIR recognizes that hard-edged structures in the Bay such as breakwaters and levees can reflect wave energy onto adjacent shorelines but concludes that the project’s proposed breakwater is adjacent to protected, hardened shorelines and thus will not cause erosional impacts to those features. However, a recent study (Economic evaluation of sea-level rise adaptation strongly influenced by hydrodynamic feedbacks, Michelle A. Hummela, Robert Griffin, Katie Arkema, and Anne D. Guerry, PNAS 2021 Vol. 118 No. 29 e2025961118) has concluded that wave energy can be reflected not only onto adjacent shorelines but also to distant shorelines, depending upon bay currents and other features. For example,
"Although there are large potential benefits from avoided flood damage behind protective infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay Area, this analysis shows that these benefits can come at a cost to other shoreline communities, both nearby and in other parts of the bay. The increase in baywide inundation volume and external damages that results from the protection of a single OLU can be as large as 36 million m3 and $723 million, respectively."
The DEIR fails to address impacts on the nearby adjacent unarmored shorelines and wetlands such as the Emeryville Crescent and Albany Mudflats.
Furthermore, the DEIR does not consider the fact that as the sea rises and there is an increase in extreme storms those wave energies may increase in intensity and pose problems even for hardened shorelines. The DEIR should analyze these issues to determine if they pose the threat of significant impacts to shorelines.
Failure to address Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Requirements
Disability rights are recognized as an essential part of environmental justice. The DEIR acknowledges this fact by including one reference to disability in the following supporting document:
Berkeley, City of. 2025. Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Environmental Justice Existing Conditions and Constraints Technical Study. October 15. Prepared by Rincon Consultants. https://berkeleypierferryproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Berkeley_2025_BWTPF-Environmental-Justice-Technical-Study.pdf
Last accessed: April 23, 2026
3.2.6 Equity Priority Communities As a part of Plan Bay Area 2050, MTC mapped out Equity Priority Communities (EPCs), formerly known as “Communities of Concern.” EPCs are census tracts that have a significant concentration of underserved populations, such as households with low incomes and people of color. Other factors, such as English proficiency, disability status, vehicle availability, and rent costs also help to define these areas. Page 22
The DEIR itself, however, lacks detailed information on how the project intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Without such information it is impossible to determine if the project will in fact comply with the ADA. For example, a search of the DEIR found zero results for the terms: Blind; Braille; Deaf. The search showed only two results for the term wheelchair:
This facility features walking trails, the 1.25-mile wheelchair accessible perimeter trail, an off-leash dog park, protected nature area, picnic areas, and wildlife viewing areas. Page 3.11-6
AB 43, also known as Traffic Safety, allows local government agencies to reduce vehicle speeds to accommodate vulnerable users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, seniors, and wheelchair users to improve traffic safety. Page 3.12-9
Examples of similar project descriptions with more useful information are provided below:
San Francisco Bay Ferry
https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/accessibility/
Last accessed: April 23, 2026
Availability of Staff Boarding Assistance
Wheelchair accessible ramps, doorways and Handles
Information on how to make a Request for Reasonable Modifications
Website Accessibility - Meets Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) standards
Availability to a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO)
Posted ADA Complaints Form on website
Golden Gate Ferry
https://www.goldengate.org/ferry/accessibility/
Last accessed: April 23, 2026
Pre-boarding assistance information
Wheelchair accessible restrooms
Information provided on wheelchair lifts
Availability of disabled seating
Advisory Committee on Accessibility
In order to adequately inform the public and decisionmakers, the instant DEIR needs to analyze and address these ADA issues with specificity.
Potential Impacts to Social Equity
The DEIR should analyze the equity impacts of the proposed parking management strategy.
Page 24 of the Berkeley Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan states “Based on the estimated ferry ridership and mode share, there will be a peak weekday demand for 421 vehicle parking spaces. With the implementation of TDM measures identified in the Berkeley Waterfront Parking and TDM Toolkit (see Appendix B), demand for parking in the ferry terminal lot could be reduced by between 8% and 15%, resulting in a demand for between 356 and 389 parking spaces each day.” But the DEIR does not provide a thorough analysis of the equity impacts of implementing such a TDM Plan.
The DEIR indicates that the proposed project would replace approximately 404 existing parking spaces with between 400 to 450 new parking spaces. While the City’s analysis frames the project’s primary purpose to reduce VMT by converting transbay automobile trips into electric ferry trips, the current analysis lacks a detailed evaluation of whether the addition of parking capacity, or even the maintenance of high parking volumes, acts as an inducement for more vehicle trips to the Berkeley Waterfront.
The EIR should analyze whether increasing the parking supply to up to 450 spaces will encourage more users to drive to the terminal rather than utilizing the proposed multimodal improvements, such as the raised cycle track on University Avenue or upgraded AC Transit bus facilities. The document currently notes that "parking scarcity alone does not constitute a significant impact on the environment," yet it fails to adequately explore the inverse: whether parking abundance undermines the project’s stated objective of "reducing the use of single-occupancy vehicles.”
The EIR should evaluate an alternative or variant that specifically reduces or removes parking to determine if such a change would result in a higher mode shift to active transportation and transit. While Alternative 4 (Reduced Landside Facilities) omits parking lot upgrades, it also omits essential transit and bicycle infrastructure. The analysis should instead consider whether prioritizing landside space for transit and recreation, while restricting parking, would further decrease VMT and associated mobile-source noise and air quality impacts. Specifically, the EIR should consider whether subsidizing improvements or operations that enhance connectivity to other transit systems such as AC Transit would improve overall transit ridership and further reduce the demand for parking spaces. The AC Transit 51B route is among the highest for ridership in the region and serves as an important link for underserved and under-resourced community members who access the shoreline and its parks via this service.
On pages 5-6 of the transportation demand management analysis in Appendix F in the Draft EIR, the report states that more than 15% of parking spaces are anticipated to be available during most hours of the day under both Year 1 and Year 15 project conditions, even without parking management or TDM systems. As recently as January 2026, the City of Berkeley has considered an annual parking pass of $500 for recreational parking, the equivalent to less than $2/day. While hourly rates are also proposed, the EIR does not sufficiently consider or address how annual parking passes such as those proposed by the City of Berkeley could negatively impact social equity for underserved community members, decrease the availability of parking for recreational visitors, and undermine the objectives of reducing vehicle traffic.
The DEIR Fails to Address Carbon Emissions
The DEIR fails to adequately address the carbon emissions generated by ferry operations. If electric ferries with the required capacity become available, will the source of electricity be 100% renewable? For that reason, the efficiency of the proposed ferries should be presented as BTUs per passenger mile and should be compared to alternative ways to cross the Bay--BART, bus, and automobile.
Moreover, so far as the Sierra Club is aware there is no 250- passenger electric ferry available in the United States. The DEIR does not address the carbon emissions from diesel ferries if WETA is unable or unwilling to obtain electric ferries. Berkeley cannot require WETA to use electric powered ferries. Consequently, one can reasonably conclude that WETA could use diesel powered ferries with greater emissions than an electrically powered ferry. The DEIR, however, does not address this possibility.
Energy Efficiency and VMT Reductions
The 2003 FEIR discusses energy efficiency, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3). The analysis in that document presents energy use by transit modes using a metric of BTUs per passenger mile. That analysis showed that ferries use nearly 10 times as much energy as buses, and about 90 times as much energy as BART. The draft EIR includes no discussion of energy efficiency and assumes that all ferry passengers would be drivers at present, rather than considering the number that might be diverted from current bus and BART crossings of the Bay. This result is despite the dedicated marketing efforts of WETA for exactly that purpose. Energy is of sufficient import to merit addition of an appendix in the CEQA Guidelines. Despite those guidelines and project scoping comments on the need to update the energy efficiency analysis, the EIR fails to address this issue or include a CO2 emission comparison. Consequently, the DEIR analysis is inadequate and should be revised accordingly in any final document.
Changed Circumstances and Dredging Impacts
The Final Program EIR by the Water Transit Authority “Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area” was completed in June of 2003. While a programmatic FEIR prepared twenty-three years ago may still be used for preparation of a draft EIR for one of the projects contemplated in that document, it is essential to update the parts of that document that may no longer be accurate. The subject DEIR relies on that FEIR for its consideration of environmental impacts, particularly operational impacts, but does not update the analysis to address the many significant differences between the project described in that document and the current proposal. Where those changes may constitute “changed circumstances” under the California Environmental Quality Act, or increased severity of impacts including cumulative impacts, the current EIR is required to analyze and disclose those changes and impacts and include feasible mitigation measures. Where there are conflicts between that adopted document and the current proposal, those conflicts may rise to the level of significant impacts. The DEIR does not address changed circumstances and, perforce, does not then address potential impacts from those changed circumstances.
Changed Project Description
For example, the WTA 2003 Final EIR contemplates a very different project for expanding service to Berkeley and includes mitigation measures that the current document has ignored. In describing the regional system, the 2003 Final EIR makes it clear that only limited dredging will be required, and only for the Rodeo/Hercules service. The current proposal for Berkeley includes a proposal for up to 400,000 cubic yards of dredging. The rationale behind the Final EIR proposal can be found in this language from page 2-2:
“...only the Hercules/Rodeo terminal would require additional dredging for implementation. All other terminal sites proposed for expanded ferry service are within existing ports or marinas.” (emphasis added)
The 2003 FEIR clearly contemplated a terminal site in Berkeley that would not require dredging. The 2003 FEIR only contemplated ferries with relatively low draft requirements (approximately 7 feet) and that they would not be deeper than those at existing marinas and ports. The 2003 FEIR also provided that the vessels contemplated for the Berkeley Ferry coming into the Marina would require little or no dredging for initiating Berkeley ferry service. This faulty assumption can be found on page 2-6, where it indicates that the vessels that would be used would be “relatively shallow draft.” The 2003 FEIR also concluded that a Berkeley marina terminal would only require 13,260 cubic yards of construction dredging—not the 400,000 cubic yards proposed in the current draft EIR.
This is particularly relevant to the current proposal, which is fundamentally different from that contemplated in the 2003 FEIR. Likewise, it is a substantial change from what was considered in the existing Berkeley Marina Master Plan, dated June 1, 2003, which also contemplated ferry service only inside the Marina. Consequently, the current proposal falls under the changed circumstances provisions of CEQA because it entails a different location that would require extensive dredging. Yet no discussion of those changes can be found in the DEIR, and the discussion of the environmental effects of dredging is brief and conclusory and not adequately addressed in the DEIR.
The Draft EIR understates the potential environmental impacts associated with dredging, sediment disturbance, pile installation, and long-term maintenance activities in San Francisco Bay. These activities occur within a highly sensitive estuarine ecosystem already under stress from habitat loss, contamination, and declining fish populations. The analysis should be revised and recirculated with a more complete assessment. Specific issues concerning dredging are discussed below.
Dredging Impacts Are Potentially Significant and Should Not Be Dismissed as Temporary
The Draft EIR concludes in Impact HYD-5 that construction-related sediment resuspension and short-term turbidity would be less than significant because impacts would be temporary and localized. This conclusion is not adequately supported.
Dredging in San Francisco Bay can result in:
Destruction of benthic habitat through removal of sediments and organisms living on the bay floor
Increased turbidity, reducing light penetration and interfering with fish feeding, respiration, and migration behavior
Release of contaminants, including heavy metals and other pollutants historically trapped in Bay sediments
Disruption of fish and wildlife, particularly sensitive and listed species already under severe population stress
Alteration of local hydrodynamics and sediment transport patterns
Even if some effects are temporary, repeated or cumulative disturbances in a stressed estuarine system may still be significant under CEQA.
Endangered and Sensitive Species Require Stronger Analysis
The Draft EIR should specifically evaluate potential dredging impacts to listed and special-status species including Delta smelt, Longfin smelt, salmonids, herring, marine mammals, and shorebirds such as the Western snowy plover.
Historically, dredging and in-water construction have caused entrainment, habitat disruption, turbidity impacts, and noise disturbance. The EIR should not rely on generalized statements of negligible impact without project-specific biological evidence.
Maintenance Dredging Must Be Analyzed
The City has reportedly stated that the project would not require maintenance dredging. That assumption appears unsupported. In Bay environments, suspended sediments naturally settle in deeper basins, and structures such as breakwaters or terminal features can reduce wave energy and create depositional zones that accelerate shoaling. Since maintenance dredging is reasonably foreseeable, CEQA requires disclosure and analysis now. The Draft EIR should evaluate:
Frequency and likely volume of maintenance dredging
Disposal or reuse locations for dredged material
Repeated habitat disturbance
Noise, turbidity, and contaminant resuspension from recurring operations
Cumulative long-term ecological effects
Missing Bathymetric and Sedimentation Data
The Draft EIR lacks sufficient technical information regarding:
Existing bathymetry of the proposed dredge area
Before-and-after bathymetric conditions
Historical sedimentation rates
Sediment transport modeling
Shoaling projections under future sea level rise conditions
Recent marina bathymetric studies and historic dredging records should be incorporated to establish a scientifically credible baseline.
Alternatives to Conventional Pile Driving Should Be Required
Where piers or foundations are proposed, the EIR should evaluate alternatives such as helical piles/piers, which may substantially reduce environmental harm compared with impact hammer pile driving.
Potential benefits include:
Lower greenhouse gas emissions than concrete-intensive systems
Reduced noise and vibration impacts to fish and marine mammals
Less sediment disturbance
Minimal excavation spoils
Smaller construction footprint
Potential removability and recyclability
This is especially relevant given the DEIR’s own mitigation measure BIO-1(d) concerning pile- driving avoidance measures for fish and marine mammals.
BCDC and Bay Policy Standards Require Avoidance First
In addition to meeting the “fully mitigated” CEQA standard of avoidance, minimization and mitigation, the project must be evaluated consistent with policies of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the McAteer-Petris framework, which prioritize:
Avoidance of adverse impacts to Bay resources
Minimization to the greatest extent practicable
Compensation only for unavoidable impacts
Mitigation cannot substitute for poor siting, excessive dredging, or unnecessary fill.
Potential Impacts to Whales from Changed Circumstances
Since the adoption of the FEIR in 2003, there have been changes in the sensitivity of the marine environment that might be affected by a new service and substantial dredging. The original 2003 FEIR concluded that whale strikes were unlikely but would be significant if they occurred.
Whale visits to San Francisco Bay have become much more frequent, with clear evidence that whales are feeding in the Bay driven by climate change driven disruptions in Arctic food supplies and the need to feed themselves and their young. Over 100 gray whales were sighted between 2018 - 2025 entering the bay, with only 4 appearing to be return visitors. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, 18% of gray whales that enter the SF Bay die there, with fast moving boat traffic and resulting strikes being a primary cause. Slaathaug JM, Lane RS, Keener W, Pérez A, Flannery M, Webber MA, Grimes A, Wilkin AM, O’Hern JE, Duignan PJ, Calambokidis J and Crocker DE (2026) Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) in San Francisco Bay experience high mortality and have limited affiliation to known foraging groups. Front. Mar. Sci. 13:1775666. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2026.177566
Whale strikes are identified as a significant impact in the 2023 FEIR but considered rare—a conclusion that is no longer tenable. As ferries are some of the fastest and most frequent watercraft on the Bay, and gray whales keep a low profile particularly in low visibility conditions including fog, this is a significant concern as Gray Whale populations have dropped by 50% since 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/15/gray-whales-san-francisco-bay
Yet the current draft EIR makes no effort to analyze the impacts which could be cumulatively if not individually significant. No consideration of this as a changed circumstance is included in the draft EIR.
Summary
Because the Draft EIR omits key data, fails to address changed circumstances and increased severity of impacts, and generally understates foreseeable ecological impact from project dredging, construction, operations and maintenance – the conclusions of less-than-significant impact are premature and unsupported. A revised environmental analysis consistent with CEQA, the San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, South Bay Plan and BCDC mitigation policies is necessary before decision-makers and the public can make an informed judgment regarding the project.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns over the deficiencies in the environmental review of valuable resources potentially impacted by the project.
Sincerely,
John J. Bauters, Chair
Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
CC: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Sierra Club California
Encl: Effects of Ferry Traffic on Migratory Birds of San Francisco Bay Slideshow, Effects of Ferry Traffic on Migratory Birds of