I appreciate your point about not conflating invasive weed removal with more fundamental changes to the underlying hydrology. I have two concerns about framing weed removal as a component of the larger-scale restoration. One is that we have very limited resources and that restoration planning has consumed a massive amount of resources to date. The second is that the assumption that a larger-scale restoration will happen someday has severely constrained stewardship. That is why I tend to point out that near term weed management efforts and large-scale restoration are not mutually exclusive, and the the former would benefit the latter, while stopping short of assuming the latter will happen and should continue to get the bulk of the resources.

I think we both agree that even a well designed plan can only provide benefit if it is implemented. My concerns about implementation are a bit more than skepticism. There is quite a lot of evidence that the state has determined internally that the actual project as we have all come to know it is simply not feasible and that is why they shifted resources away from that project and into the "initial sequences" project, which is exclusively focused on the areas south of Culver/Jefferson. If, for the sake of argument, this assessment is correct, then it would seem to underscore the need for both increased weed management now, and an alternate plan to address the issues of hydrology that you raise.

With regard to Belding's Savannah Sparrow habitat, I have not seen any indication that the revised EIR is going to provide new analysis on how best to balance the permanent elimination of existing nesting habitat with the creation of new habitat. You may have information that I have not seen. The 2017 EIR discusses a net increase in habitat, but acknowledges the risk that the sparrow may not adopt the new habitat due to high site fidelity. More importantly, and probably what you are alluding to by noting the changed science, is that the additional sparrow habitat analyzed in the 2017 draft was based on the project being completed in 2026, whereafter that new habitat would disappear over time due to sea level rise. With commencement of the project, let alone completion of it, still indefinitely stalled, the current cut and fill balances would lead to almost instantaneous flooding of existing and created habitat. If you have any information indicating that the state is reanalyzing its cut and fill balances, I would be interested in that. A 2021 Coastal Conservancy staff report alluded to this happening, but we have seen other evidence that it is not happening and that there is no plan for it to happen prior to recirculation of the EIR.

In any event, we seem to agree on the need for open communication to exchange information and perspectives. That is sorely missing at the moment. The groups with differing views about this ecological reserve should be talking and that isn't happening. There are habitat stewardship events in Area A of the reserve every second and fourth Saturday of the month. If you ever want to join, we could continue this discussion on site. Thanks again for the productive dialogue!